Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Whose Responsibility is it Anyway?Accountability and Standpoints for Disaster Risk Reduction in Nepal.Sheena Ramkumar - 2022 - Dissertation, Durham University
    Generalisation, universal knowledge claims, and recommendations within disaster studies are problematic because they lead to miscommunication and the misapplication of actionable knowledge. The consequences and impacts thereof are not often considered by experts; forgone as irrelevant to the academic division of labour. There is a disconnect between expert assertions for disaster risk reduction (DRR) and their practical suitability for laypersons. Experts currently assert independently of the context within which protective action measures (PAMs) are to be used, measures unconnected to the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Critical Normativity.Joseph William Singer - 2009 - Law and Critique 20 (1):27-42.
    Skeptics argue that statements about right and wrong are merely expressions of preferences. They are mistaken; values are not the same as mere preferences. When we assert preferences that affect others, we justify our actions by giving reasons that we believe others should accept. When we evaluate those reasons, we typically reject certain preferences as illegitimate. Values are different from preferences because they entail demands we feel entitled to make of each other, after critical reflection. But this does not require (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Fogelin’s Theory of Deep Disagreements: A Relativistic Reading.Victoria Lavorerio - 2020 - Philosophical Investigations 43 (4):346-362.
    In “The Logic of Deep Disagreements,” Robert Fogelin claims that parties to a deep disagreement lack the common ground needed for arguments to work, making the disagreement impervious to rational resolution. Although Fogelin’s article received numerous responses, there has been no attempt to elucidate the epistemological theory behind Fogelin’s theses. In this article, I examine Fogelin’s theory of deep disagreements in light of his broader philosophy. The picture that emerges is that of relativism of distance, à la Bernard Williams. By (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Deep Disagreement and the Virtues of Argumentative and Epistemic Incapacity.Jeremy Barris - 2018 - Informal Logic 38 (3):369-408.
    Fogelin’s Wittgensteinian view of deep disagreement as allowing no rational resolution has been criticized from both argumentation theoretic and epistemological perspectives. These criticisms typically do not recognize how his point applies to the very argumentative resources on which they rely. Additionally, more extremely than Fogelin himself argues, the conditions of deep disagreement make each position literally unintelligible to the other, again disallowing rational resolution. In turn, however, this failure of sense is so extreme that it partly cancels its own meaning (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • A Swan, and Pike, and a crawfish walk into a bar.Shimon Edelman - 2008 - Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Ai 20:261-268.
    The three commentaries of Van Orden, Spivey and Anderson, and Dietrich (with Markman’s as a backdrop) form a tableau that reminds me of a fable by Ivan Andreevich Krylov (1769 - 1844), in which a swan, a pike, and a crawfish undertake jointly to move a cart laden with goods. What transpires then is not unexpected: the swan strives skyward, the pike pulls toward the river, and the crawfish scrambles backward. The call for papers for the present ecumenically minded special (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation