Humeanisms: metaphysical and epistemological.

Classic inductive skepticism–the epistemological claim that we have no good reason to believe that the unobserved resembles the observed–is plausibly everyone's lot, whether or not they embrace Hume's metaphysical claim that distinct existents are "entirely loose and separate". But contemporary advo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Synthese Vol. 199; no. 1/2; pp. 905 - 926
Autor principal: Segal, Aaron
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Springer Nature Dec2021
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=153650812&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 153650812
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00397857
        4LI
      jtl: Synthese
      issn: 00397857
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Dec2021
      vid: 199
      iid: 1/2
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        153650812
        10.1007/s11229-020-02741-w
      ppf: 905
      ppct: 21
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 357KB
      tig:
        atl: Humeanisms: metaphysical and epistemological.
      aug:
        au: Segal, Aaron
        affil: Department of Philosophy, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 5503 Humanities Building, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel
      su: Metaphysics
      sug:
        subj: Metaphysics
      keyword:
        Denial of necessary connections
        Epistemological humeanism
        Metaphysical humeanism
        Problem of induction
      ab: Classic inductive skepticism–the epistemological claim that we have no good reason to believe that the unobserved resembles the observed–is plausibly everyone's lot, whether or not they embrace Hume's metaphysical claim that distinct existents are "entirely loose and separate". But contemporary advocates of a Humean metaphysic accept a metaphysical claim stronger than Hume's own. I argue that their view plausibly gives rise to a radical inductive skepticism–according to which we are downright irrational in believing as we do about the unobserved–that we don't otherwise have reason to accept. The Metaphysical Neo-Humean is in an epistemological quagmire all her own.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Synthese is a copyright of Springer, 2021. All Rights Reserved.
      item: Synthese
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2021
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N