WARRANT, CONCLU SIVE REASON, AND FAILU RE-OF-TRANSFER-OF-WARRANT.
Fred Dretske motivates his denial of epistemic closure by way of the thought that the warrant for the premises of a valid argument need not transfer (or 'transmit') to the argument's conclusion. The failure-of-transfer-of-warrant (FTW) strategy has also been used by advocates of epistemic closure as...
| Publicado en: | Problems / Problemos Vol. 94; pp. 35 - 49 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Vilnius University
2018
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=133356991&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 133356991 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 13921126 3D4C jtl: Problems / Problemos issn: 13921126 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: 2018 vid: 94 pid: 16037 pub: Vilnius University artinfo: ui: 133356991 10.15388/Problemos.2018.0.0.11993 ppf: 35 ppct: 14 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 2.8MB tig: atl: WARRANT, CONCLU SIVE REASON, AND FAILU RE-OF-TRANSFER-OF-WARRANT. aug: au: Ramachandran, Murali affil: Department of Philosophy University of the Witwatersrand Wits 2050, South Africa Researcher, Tomsk State University su: Argument Lawyers Warrants (Law) Environmental lawyers Dilemma sug: subj: Argument Lawyers Warrants (Law) Environmental lawyers Dilemma keyword: Conclusive reasons Epistemic closure Failure of transfer of warrant Question begging įrodančios priežastys episteminis uždarumas pagrindo neperdavimas ydingas ratas ab: Fred Dretske motivates his denial of epistemic closure by way of the thought that the warrant for the premises of a valid argument need not transfer (or 'transmit') to the argument's conclusion. The failure-of-transfer-of-warrant (FTW) strategy has also been used by advocates of epistemic closure as a foil to Michael McKinsey's argument against the compatibility of first person authority and semantic externalism, and also to illuminate, more generally, why certain valid arguments appear ill-suited for the purpose of establishing their conclusions. This paper takes re-examines some of the central attempts to explain transmission-failure, and a central line of objection to the strategy from Begging-the-Question theorists. The ultimate goal of this paper is to promote a decidedly Dretskean explanation of the unpersuasiveness of the said arguments. Fredas Dretske savo episteminio uždarumo (epistemic closure) atmetimą grindžia tuo, kad pagrįsto samprotavimo pagrindas (warrant) neprivalo pereiti (arba būti „perduotas“) samprotavimo išvadai. Pagrindo neperdavimo (failure of transfer of warrant) strategiją taip pat naudojo episteminio uždarumo šalininkai kaip apsaugą nuo Michaelo McKinsey'io argumento prieš pirmojo asmens autoriteto suderinamumą su semantiniu eksternalizmu, taip pat kaip bendresnį paaiškinimą, kodėl tam tikri pagrįsti samprotavimai atrodo neįtikinamai jų išvadų pagrįstumo požiūriu. Šiame straipsnyje naujai nagrinėjami kai kurie svarbiausi mėginimai paaiškinti pagrindo neperdavimo atvejus ir pagrindinė kontrargumentavimo strategija atsakant teoretikams, įžvelgiantiems ydingą ratą. Pagrindinis šio straipsnio tikslas yra apginti dretskišką minėtų samprotavimų neįtikinamumo paaiškinimą. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Problems / Problemos is the property of Vilnius University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Problems / Problemos holder: Vilnius University dt: @attributes: year: 2018 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|