Objectivist conditions for defeat and evolutionary debunking arguments
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
Evolutionary Debunking Arguments
Evolutionary debunking arguments (EDAs) are arguments that appeal to the evolutionary origins of evaluative beliefs to undermine their justification. This paper aims to clarify the premises and presuppositions of EDAs-a form of argument that is increasingly put to use in normative ethics. I argue that such arguments face serious obstacles. It is often overlooked, for example, that they presuppo...
متن کاملEvolutionary debunking arguments in three domains: Fact, value, and religion
Ever since Darwin people have worried about the sceptical implications of evolution. If our minds are products of evolution like those of other animals, why suppose that the beliefs they produce are true, rather than merely useful? We consider this problem for beliefs in three different domains: religion, morality, and commonsense and scientific claims about matters of empirical fact. We identi...
متن کاملDefeat Among Negotiation Arguments
Recent work by Parsons-Sierra-Jennings and Kraus-Sycara-Evenchik, and others, has put formal representations of argument together with negotiation dialogues. Unfortunately, the analysis has not been as penetrating as perhaps it could be. This is because the authors have been (i) attempting to formalize negotiation speech acts too broadly while (ii) including explicit argument moves in the dialo...
متن کاملSelective Debunking Arguments, Folk Psychology and Empirical Moral Psychology
Reflecting on the significance of his early research on the neuropsychology of moral judgment, Joshua Greene raises an important and increasingly pressing kind of question: “Where does one draw the line between correcting the nearsightedness of human moral nature and obliterating it completely?” and goes on to more directly wonder “How far can the empirical debunking of human moral nature go?” ...
متن کاملArguments and Defeat in Argument-Based Nonmonotonic Reasoning
Argument-based formalisms are gaining popularity as models of nonmonotonic reasoning. Central in such formalisms is a notion of argument. Arguments are formal reconstructions of how a conclusion is supported. Generally, an argument is defeasible. This means that an argument supporting a conclusion does not always justify its conclusion: the argument can be defeated. Whether a conclusion support...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Ratio
سال: 2019
ISSN: 0034-0006,1467-9329
DOI: 10.1111/rati.12230