In order to block controversial predictions of 2D semantics (The Nesting Problem), Chalmers and Rabern (2014) propose adding an additional constriction called “the liveness constraint” in definitions of epistemic modals. Without this constraint, all scenario‐world pairs counterfactual to a scenario‐world pair considered as actual in a 2D matrix for a contingent a priori proposition ϕ appear problematic for 2D semantics. This is because, although it is false that ϕ in such pairs, it is a priori true that ϕ. I consider (...) two versions of 2D semantics, those with unstructured and structured intensions. I argue that the unstructured version of 2D semantics is over‐simplified and due to this, it has controversial predictions for counterfactual scenario‐world pairs – the definition of epistemic conceivability with the liveness constraint causes some contingent propositions to appear inconceivable in counterfactual scenario‐world pairs, while some other contingent propositions remain conceivable. In turn, the structured version of the 2D account of propositions has no explanation of how it is possible to possess purely qualitative knowledge without its being dependent on a particular individual or on a particular actual world. (shrink)

I defend the claim that physicalism is not committed to the view that non-phenomenal macrophysical truths are a priori entailed by the conjunction of microphysical truths , basic indexical facts , and a 'that's all' claim . I do so by showing that Chalmers and Jackson's most popular and influential argument in support of the claim that PIT ⊃ M is a priori, where 'M' stands for any ordinary, non-phenomenal, macroscopic truth, falls short of establishing its conclusion. My objection to (...) Chalmers and Jackson's argument takes the form of a nested dilemma. Let 'Conceptual Competence Principle ' stand for the following claim: for any complete microphysical description D of a world w, a subject who is in possession of and competent with a macrophysical concept C is capable of determining a priori the extension of C. Either Jackson and Chalmers accept CCP or not. If the latter, then they cannot demonstrate that the conditional PIT ⊃ M is a priori. If the former, then they have a choice: they can either cite reasons that support the principle or argue that the principle should be taken for granted since it is entailed by the very notion of conceptual competence. But both alternatives are problematic. In regard to the first horn of this latter dilemma, I show not only that there are no good reasons to support the principle, but that there are also reasons to reject it. In regard to the second horn, I show that it cannot be the case that CCP is part of the very notion of conceptual competence. The conceptual capacity expressed by CCP requires that certain bridge principles or conditionals, which link the microphysical level to the macroscopic level, are either implicitly or explicitly given to the subject. But, as I argue, Chalmers and Jackson have no way of accounting for these bridge principles or conditionals in a manner that does not trivialize their position. (shrink)

Conceptual analysis has been a traditional methodology within analytic philosophy, but it also has been the target of numerous attacks. On the other hand, explication has been undergoing a revival as a methodological alternative due to the revisionary element associated with it. This allows for a scientific reconstruction of our ordinary notions, which would share virtues associated with scientific concepts. However, there is now a popular variant of conceptual analysis which resembles closely the explicative methodology: the two-step methodology advanced by (...) the advocates of the Canberra Plan. Although explication is a wider and more ambitious program, I will argue that both methodologies can be regarded as attempts to bring philosophical methodology and its products closer to scientific ones. However, I will also point out that, although the goal is advantageous, there still remain some theoretical problems. (shrink)