Mehrshad Rezaee; Seyed Ali Kalantari; Amir Ehsan Karbasizadeh
Abstract
Cornell realism belongs to the new wave movements in ethical naturalism debates. What distinguishes Cornell realism from other ethical naturalism is that the thesis adopts an anti-reductionist approach towards ethical facts. Our aim in this paper is to consider the thesis based on Richard Boyd’s ...
Read More
Cornell realism belongs to the new wave movements in ethical naturalism debates. What distinguishes Cornell realism from other ethical naturalism is that the thesis adopts an anti-reductionist approach towards ethical facts. Our aim in this paper is to consider the thesis based on Richard Boyd’s views who is the most well-known defender of the thesis. We try to show that Boyd’s proposal on the semantics of ethical terms can defuse both Moore’s open-question argument and constructivist relativism arguments. Along with considering Boyd’s thesis, we will consider the required premises of his argument like the idea of the natural kind, extensional identities, co-referentiality, and partial denotation.
Seyed Ali Kalantari; amir karbasizadeh
Abstract
In this paper we will consider the idea of logical pluralism with emphasis on Beall and Restall's (2006) account of pluralism. We begin by specification of logical exclusivism, logical relativism and different accounts of logical pluralism and their difference with Beall and Restall's account of logical ...
Read More
In this paper we will consider the idea of logical pluralism with emphasis on Beall and Restall's (2006) account of pluralism. We begin by specification of logical exclusivism, logical relativism and different accounts of logical pluralism and their difference with Beall and Restall's account of logical pluralism. We show that Beall and Restall believe in a kind of semantic logical pluralism according to which there are different plausible interpretations of the "case" in Traski's definition of validity. On the other hand, they also believe the so-called idea of normativity of logic. According to the idea, the notion of logical validity has normative implications for evaluation of arguments in natural language. Our key claim is that the latter claim undermines Beall and Restall's logical pluralism, that is, the normativity of logic collapses their logical pluralism into logical exclusivism. The study of different formulations of the normativity of logic is less considered on debates relating to logical pluralism. Along with considering logical normativity, we will criticize Beall and Restall's pluralism.
amir ehsan karbasi zadeh; meysam mohammad amini
Abstract
Science often seems to issue statements about probability of some occurrence. In this paper, we will take a look at three different interpretations of probability. What all of these interpretations share is that they satisfy the Kolmogorov axioms of probability. Briefly discussing each interpretation ...
Read More
Science often seems to issue statements about probability of some occurrence. In this paper, we will take a look at three different interpretations of probability. What all of these interpretations share is that they satisfy the Kolmogorov axioms of probability. Briefly discussing each interpretation and its problems, we will focus on the subjective or Bayesian interpretation. Many philosophers have tried to understand evidence using probability. When there is uncertainty about a scientific hypothesis, observational evidence can sometimes raise or lower the probability of the hypothesis. Bayesianism is the most available version of this idea. According to the Bayesians, a probability measures a person’s degree of confidence in the truth of some proposition relative to available evidence.
amir ehsan karbasi zadeh
Abstract
Attempts to capture the distinction between categorical and dispositional states in terms of more primitive modal notions – subjunctive conditionals, causal roles, or combinatorial principles – are bound to fail. Such failure is ensured by a deep symmetry in the ways dispositional and categorical ...
Read More
Attempts to capture the distinction between categorical and dispositional states in terms of more primitive modal notions – subjunctive conditionals, causal roles, or combinatorial principles – are bound to fail. Such failure is ensured by a deep symmetry in the ways dispositional and categorical states alike carry modal import. But the categorical/dispositional distinction should not be abandoned; it underpins important metaphysical disputes. Rather, it should be taken as a primitive, after which the doomed attempts at reductive explanation can be transformed into circular but interesting accounts
