Many things in the natural world work so well that they seem to have been designed. But by what? Could nature itself, by processes including those of evolution, be the designer? Or must their complex structure and function be attributed to some intelligent designer or God? Is natural design compatible with intelligent design? How good is the argument from the presence of design to an intelligent designer? And if we could legitimately infer the probable existence of an intelligent designer from (...) the presence of design in the natural world, what could we then infer about that designer's nature? (shrink)

In this paper, I look at Susan Stebbing’s articles and reviews that critically engage logical positivism. These appeared before the publication of A.J. Ayer’s Language, Truth and Logic and helped shape the early British reception of logical positivism. I highlight Stebbing’s adoption of G.E. Moore’s tripartite distinction between knowing a proposition, understanding it, and giving an analysis of it and, in light of this distinction, her focus on whether the principle of verifiability can ground a plausible account of communication. Stebbing (...) thinks not, and I reconstruct her reasons, as well as her own account of communication. In doing this, I relate her criticisms to her rejection of methodological solipsism and her dissatisfaction with the logical positivist treatment of statements about other minds and the past. I also argue that Stebbing’s work provides a bridge to later criticisms of logical positivism from ordinary language philosophers. Foregrounding Stebbing’s engagement with logical positivism, especially her focus on communication, paints a fuller picture of how the logical positivists came to be part of analytic philosophy despite having different concerns than many of the British philosophers engaging their work. (shrink)

Arguing that our attachment to Aristotelian modes of discourse makes a revision of their conceptual foundations long overdue, the author proposes the consideration of unacknowledged factors that play a central role in argument itself. These are in particular the subjective imprint and the dynamics of argumentation. Their inclusion in a four-dimensional framework and the focus on thesis validity allow for a more realistic view of our discourse practice. Exhaustive analyses of fascinating historical and contemporary arguments are provided. These range from (...) Columbus’s advocacy of the Western Passage to India, over the trial of King Louis XVI during the French Revolution, to today’s highly charged controversies surrounding euthanasia and embryo research. Excavating foundational issues such as the purpose of argument itself and the contested role of argument as a generator of knowledge, the book culminates in a discussion of the relationship between rationality and reasonableness and criticizes the restrictions of ‘rational’ argument relying on fixed logical, economic or cultural criteria that in reality are mutable. Here, a true, open argument requires the infusion of Paul Lorenzen’s principle of ‘transsubjectivity’, which recognizes but transcends the partiality of the individual and which can be seen in the pragmatic and expanding consensus that humanity can control itself to safeguard the future of a fragile, damaged world. (shrink)

This dissertation responds to the question, "To what extent can the pragmatist theories of truth of Peirce and James be defended against the major philosophical criticisms that have been used to dismiss them?" The answer to this depends to a great degree on the kind of formulation given these theories. Hence, one of the major goals of this dissertation is to express precisely and systematically Peirce's and James's theories of truth in such a way that only one of various possible (...) alternative expressions is identified as the interpretation that most remains faithful to the intentions of Peirce and James. Rather than offer merely a historical overview of these theories, I attempt a critical reformulation of them in the sense that I intervene to correct errors and aberrations in the theories as promulgated, either on my own responsibility or by reference to authoritative statements. The investigation consists of these parts: a comparison and contrast of Peirce's and James's pragmatic methods, in which it is suggested that James's medical background led him to a theory of meaning rather more broad in principle than Peirce's; an investigation of Peirce's theory of truth, in which his most famous formulation receives detailed exegesis; an investigation of James's theory of truth, in which it is argued that this theory should more properly be understood as a theory of knowledge; and an enumeration and evaluation of those major philosophical criticisms aimed at these theories, in which it is argued that the pragmatist theories have, indeed, been misunderstood, and that when correctly interpreted, they may be defended against these objections. (shrink)