Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-10 of 574 documents


articles
1. Croatian Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 18 > Issue: 3
Andrew Botterell, Robert J. Stainton An Anscombean Reference for ‘I’?
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
A standard reading of Anscombe’s “The First Person” takes her to argue, via reductio, that ‘I’ must be radically non-referring. Allegedly, she analogizes ‘I’ to the expletive ‘it’ in ‘It is raining’. Hence nothing need be said about Anscombe’s understanding of “the referential functioning of ‘I’”, there being no such thing. We think that this radical reading is incorrect. Given this, a pressing question arises: How does ‘I’ refer for Anscombe, and what sort of thing do users of ‘I’ refer to? We present a tentative answer which is both consistent with much of what Anscombe says, and is also empirically/philosophically defensible.
2. Croatian Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 18 > Issue: 3
Bianca Cepollaro Negative or Positive?: Three Theories of Evaluation Reversal
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In this paper, I consider the phenomenon of evaluation reversal for two classes of evaluative terms that have received a great deal of attention in philosophy of language and linguistics: slurs and thick terms. I consider three approaches to analyze evaluation reversal: (i) lexical deflationist account, (ii) ambiguity account and (iii) echoic account. My purpose is mostly negative: my aim is to underline the shortcomings of these three strategies, in order to possibly pave the way for more suitable accounts.
3. Croatian Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 18 > Issue: 3
Derek Ball Lewisian Scorekeeping and the Future
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The purpose of this paper is to draw out a little noticed, but (I think) correct and important, consequence of David Lewis’s theory of how the values of contextual parameters are determined. According to Lewis (1979), these values are often determined at least in part by accommodation; to a first approximation, the idea is that contextual parameters tend to take on the values they need to have in order for our utterances to be true. The little-noticed consequence of Lewis’s way of developing these ideas is that what we say is determined in part by the way the conversation unfolds after our utterance. That is, Lewisian accommodation entails a non-standard form of externalism, according to which what we say is determined not only by factors internal to us at the time of our utterance, nor even by truths about our physical or social environment at the time of utterance or by our history, but also by truths about our future—truths about times after the time of our utterance. Seeing this consequence clearly lets us refi ne and improve upon Lewis’s account of when accommodation can occur.
4. Croatian Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 18 > Issue: 3
Nenad Miščević Predicates of Personal Taste: Relativism, Contextualism or Pluralism?
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The paper addresses issues of predicates of taste, both gustatory and aesthetic in dialogue with Michael Glanzberg. The first part briefly discusses his view of anaphora in the determination of the semantics of such predicates, and attempts a friendly generalization of his strategy. The second part discusses his contextualism about statements of taste, of the form A is Φ, and then proposes a pluralist alternative. The literature normally confronts contextualism and relativism here, but the pluralist proposal introduces further options. First, it distinguishes first-level and second-level, more theoretical, approaches. At the first level it introduces the naïve view option, the naive non-dogmatist experiencer who simply claims that A is Φ and that’s it. On meta-level such an experiencer is simply agnostic about further matters. Then, there is the first-level dogmatist stance, characteristic for people who do sincerely debate the issues, who naively believe they are objectively right. The third option is the tolerant, liberal one: “A is Φ; for me, I mean. How do you find it?” On the meta-level, dogmatic disagreement goes well with value-absolutism, entailing that one of the parties is simply wrong, and with relativism. If one is not dogmatist about taste predicates, one should accept that dogmatist is simply wrong; no faultlessness is present. The liberal stance goes well with contextualism. If one is liberal there is no deep disagreement. So, the idea of faultless disagreement is a myth. But the proposal notes that language is open to all possibilities, there is no single option that is obligatory for all speakers.
5. Croatian Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 18 > Issue: 3
Phil Maguire, Rebecca Maguire On the Measurability of Measurement Standards
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Pollock (2004) argues in favour of Wittgenstein’s (1953) claim that the standard metre bar in Paris has no metric length: Because the standard retains a special status in the system of measurement, it cannot be applied to itself. However, we argue that Pollock is mistaken regarding the feature of the standard metre which supports its special status. While the unit markings were arbitrarily designated, the constitution, preservation and application of the bar have been scientifically developed to optimize stability, and hence predictive accuracy. We argue that it is the ‘hard to improve’ quality of stability that supports the standard’s value in measurement, not any of its arbitrary features. And because the special status of the prototype is tied to its ability to meet this external criterion, the possibility always exists of identifying an alternative, more stable, standard, thereby allowing the original standard to be measured.
6. Croatian Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 18 > Issue: 3
Frank Hofmann Evolution and Ethics: No Streetian Debunking of Moral Realism
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This paper is concerned with the reconstruction of a core argument that can be extracted from Street’s ‘Darwinian Dilemma’ and that is intended to ‘debunk’ moral realism by appeal to evolution. The argument, which is best taken to have the form of an undermining defeater argument, fails, I argue. A simple, first formulation is rejected as a non sequitur, due to not distinguishing between the evolutionary process that influences moral attitudes and the cognitive system generating moral attitudes. Reformulations that respect the distinction and that could make the argument valid, however, bring in an implausible premise about an implication from evolutionary influence to unreliability. Crucially, perception provides a counterexample, and the fitness contribution of reliably accurate representation has to be taken into account. Then the moral realist can explain why and how evolution indirectly cares for the truth of moral attitudes. The one and only condition that has to be satisfied in order for this explanation to work is the sufficient epistemic accessibility of moral facts. As long as the moral facts are sufficiently reliably representable, one can see how evolution could favor getting it right about the moral facts. Interestingly, apart from this epistemic constraint no further constraint and, in particular, no objectivity constraint on what the moral facts have to be like can be derived. Thus, the only problem for the moral realist is to make good on epistemic access to moral facts—an old problem, not a new one.
logic of argumentation
7. Croatian Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 18 > Issue: 3
Danilo Šuster On a Consequence in a Broad Sense
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Cogency is the central normative concept of informal logic. But it is a loose evaluative concept and I argue that a generic notion covering all of the qualities of a well-reasoned argument is the most plausible conception. It is best captured by the standard RSA criterion: in a good argument acceptable (A) and relevant (R) premises provide sufficient (S) grounds for the conclusion. Logical qualities in a broad sense are affected by the epistemic qualities of the premises and “consequence” in a broad sense exhibits an interplay of form and content. There are four proposals for the premise—conclusion relation: (i) no strictly logical connection (“non-logical” consequence); (ii) one type of connection only (deductivism); (iii) a few types of connection (deduction, induction, perhaps conduction and analogical reasoning); (iv) many types of connection (argumentation schemes). Deductivism is a serious option but in its strong version, as the discussion about petitio shows, it fails to establish that arguments which are not cogent are thereby invalid. And weak deductivism, very attractive from the pedagogical point of view, has some deficiencies (implausible hidden premises; preservation of truth, not probability). I argue that the idea of a counterexample, when we regard certain components of the argument as fixed and others as variable, is the best approach to the analysis of the illative core of every-day arguments (the approach of David Hitchcock on material consequence).
8. Croatian Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 18 > Issue: 3
Nenad Smokrović Informal Reasoning and Formal Logic: Normativity of Natural Language Reasoning
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Dealing with deductive reasoning, performed by ‘real-life’ reasoners and expressed in natural language, the paper confronts Harman’s denying of normative relevance of logic to reasoning with a logicist thesis, a principle that is supposed to contribute for solving the problem of incongruence between descriptive nature of logic and normativity of reasoning. The paper discusses in detail John MacFarlane’s (2004) and Hartry Field’s (2009) variants of “bridge principle”. Taking both variants of bridge principles as its starting point, the paper proceeds arguing that there is more than one logical formalism that can be normatively suitable for deductive reasoning, due to the fact that reasoning can assume different forms that are guided by different goals. A particular reasoning processing can be modelled by specific formalism that can be shown to be actually used by a real human agent in a real reasoning context.
9. Croatian Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 18 > Issue: 3
Edi Pavlović Some Limitations on the Applications of Propositional Logic
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This paper introduces a logic game which can be used to demonstrate the working of Boolean connectives. The simplicity of the system turns out to lead to some interesting meta-theoretical properties, which themselves carry a philosophical import. After introducing the system, we demonstrate an interesting feature of it—that it, while being an accurate model of propositional logic Booleans, does not contain any tautologies nor contradictions. This result allows us to make explicit a limitation of application of propositional logic to those sentences with relatively stable truth values.
10. Croatian Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 18 > Issue: 3
Davor Lauc How Gruesome are the No-free-lunch Theorems for Machine Learning?
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
No-free-lunch theorems are important theoretical result in the fields of machine learning and artificial intelligence. Researchers in this fields often claim that the theorems are based on Hume’s argument about induction and represent a formalisation of the argument. This paper argues that this is erroneous but that the theorems correspond to and formalise Goodman’s new riddle of induction. To demonstrate the correspondence among the theorems and Goodman’s argument, a formalisation of the latter in the spirit of the former is sketched.