Background: Many people with aphasia and people without brain injury talk to themselves in their heads, i.e., have “inner speech.” Inner speech may be more preserved compared with spoken speech for some people with aphasia and may serve a variety of functions (e.g., emotion regulation), which motivates us to provide a high-fidelity characterization of it. Researchers have used multiple methods to measure this internal phenomenon in the past, which we combine here for the first time in a single study. -/- (...) Aims: We compare performance between individuals with and without aphasia on inner speech tasks that assess inner speech “inthe- moment” to general subjective impressions of inner speech to tease apart the relationship of aphasia severity to inner speech. Methods and Procedures: Twenty people with mild-moderate aphasia and twenty neurotypical controls completed several inner speech tasks, including objective silent rhyme judgements (picture, written, and auditory), subjective reports of inner speech during naming, and subjective rating scales about inner speech experience more generally. -/- Outcomes and Results: In-the-moment inner speech during silent rhyming tasks was associated with aphasia severity only for picture and written rhyming but not auditory rhyming. In-the-moment inner speech reports during silent naming were not associated with aphasia severity, nor were the subjective ratings about general inner speech experience. Individuals with and without aphasia demonstrated a variety of subjective general inner speech experiences, demonstrating heterogeneity of this phenomenon more broadly. -/- Conclusions: Methods of measuring inner speech complement each other and speak to different facets of the inner speech phenomenon, and clinicians and researchers must carefully choose the method(s) that will provide the information about inner speech that they desire. (shrink)

भौतिकवाद, रिडक्शनिज्म, व्यवहारवाद, कार्यवाद, गतिशील प्रणाली सिद्धांत और अभिकलनवाद लोकप्रिय विचार हैं, लेकिन उन्हें विटगेनस्टीन द्वारा असंबद्ध होने के लिए दिखाया गया था। व्यवहार के अध्ययन मानव जीवन के सभी शामिल हैं, लेकिन व्यवहार काफी हद तक स्वत: और बेहोश और यहां तक कि सचेत हिस्सा है, ज्यादातर भाषा में व्यक्त (जो Wittgenstein मन के साथ समानता), perspicous नहीं है, तो यह महत्वपूर्ण है एक रूपरेखा जो Searle Rationality के तार्किक संरचना (LSR) कहते हैं और मैं उच्च आदेश सोचा (DPHOT) (...) के वर्णनात्मक मनोविज्ञान कहते हैं. रूपरेखा का सारांश के बाद Wittgenstein और Searle द्वारा बाहर काम किया, के रूप में आधुनिक तर्क अनुसंधान द्वारा बढ़ाया, मैं Carruther विचार है, जो व्यवहार के सबसे विचारों व्याप्त में अक्षमता दिखाने के समकालीन व्यवहार सहित विज्ञान. मेरा मानना है कि उनकी किताब दो पुस्तकों का एक मिश्रण है, एक संज्ञानात्मक मनोविज्ञान का सारांश और अन्य कुछ नए शब्दजाल के साथ मन पर मानक दार्शनिक भ्रम का सारांश जोड़ा. मेरा सुझाव है कि बाद के असंबद्ध या जीवन के एक कार्टून दृश्य के रूप में माना जाना चाहिए और है कि अपने शब्द पर Wittgenstein ले, हम मन के बारे में सफल आत्म चिकित्सा अभ्यास कर सकते हैं / आधुनिक दो systems दृश्यसे मानव व्यवहार के लिए एक व्यापक अप करने के लिए तारीख रूपरेखा इच्छुक लोगों को मेरी पुस्तक 'दर्शन, मनोविज्ञान, मिनडी और लुडविगमें भाषा की तार्किक संरचना से परामर्श कर सकते हैं Wittgenstein और जॉन Searle '2 एड (2019). मेरे लेखन के अधिक में रुचि रखने वालों को देख सकते हैं 'बात कर रहेबंदर- दर्शन, मनोविज्ञान, विज्ञान, धर्म और राजनीति पर एक बर्बाद ग्रह --लेख और समीक्षा 2006-2019 3 एड (2019) और आत्मघाती यूटोपियान भ्रम 21st मेंसदी 4वें एड (2019) . (shrink)

Materialism, reductionism, behaviorism, functionalism, dynamic systems theory and computationalism are popular views, but they were shown by Wittgenstein to be incoherent. The study of behavior encompasses all of human life but behavior is largely automatic and unconscious and even the conscious part, mostly expressed in language (which Wittgenstein equates with the mind), is not perspicuous, so it is critical to have a framework which Searle calls the Logical Structure of Rationality (LSR) and I call the Descriptive Psychology of Higher Order (...) Thought (DPHOT). After summarizing the framework worked out by Wittgenstein and Searle, as extended by modern reasoning research, I show the inadequacies in Carruther’s views, which pervade most discussions of behavior including contemporary behavioral sciences. I maintain that his book is an amalgam of two books, one a summary of cognitive psychology and the other a summary of the standard philosophical confusions on the mind with some new jargon added. I suggest that the latter should be regarded as incoherent or as a cartoon view of life and that taking Wittgenstein at his word, we can practice successful self therapy by regarding the mind/body issue as a language/body issue. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019). (shrink)

물질주의, 감소주의, 행동주의, 기능주의, 역동적인 시스템 이론 및 계산주의는 대중적인 견해이지만, 비텐슈타인은 일관되지 않은 것으로 나타났다. 행동의 연구는 인간의 삶의 모든, 을 포괄하지만, 행동은 주로 언어 (위트겐슈타인이 마음과 동일시)언어로 표현, 심지어 의식 부분, 그것은 Searle합리 (LSR)의 논리적 구조를 호출하고 나는 높은 질서 생각의 설명 심리학을 호출하는 프레임 워크를 가지고하는 것이 중요합니다. Wittgenstein과 Searle에 의해 일한 프레임 워크를 요약 한 후, 현대 추론 연구에 의해 확장, 나는 카루터의 견해의 부적절함을 보여, 이는 행동의 대부분의 토론을 침투,, 현대 행동 과학을 포함. 나는 그의 (...) 책이 두 권의 책의 융합이라고 주장, 하나는 인지 심리학의 요약과 몇 가지 새로운 전문 용어가 추가 와 마음에 표준 철학적 혼란의 요약. 나는 후자가 일관되지 않거나 삶의 만화보기로 간주되어야하며 그의 말에 비트 겐슈타인을 복용하는 것이 좋습니다, 우리는 언어 / 신체 문제로 마음 / 몸 문제에 대해 하여 성공적인 자기 치료를 연습 할 수 있습니다. 현대 의 두 systems보기에서인간의 행동에 대한 포괄적 인 최신 프레임 워크를 원하는 사람들은 내 책을 참조 할 수 있습니다'철학의 논리적 구조, 심리학, 민d와 루드비히 비트겐슈타인과 존 Searle의언어' 2nd ed (2019). 내 글의 더 많은 관심있는 사람들은 '이야기 원숭이를 볼 수 있습니다-철학, 심리학, 과학, 종교와 운명 행성에 정치 - 기사 및 리뷰 2006-2019 3 rd 에드 (2019) 및 21st 세기 4번째 에드 (2019) 및 기타에서 자살 유토피아 망상. 먼저 S의 후임자로 간주하고 S의 후임자라고 생각할 때 John Searle (S)와 Ludwig Wittgenstein (W) (공동 WS)의 작품에서 예시 된 철학과 현대 심리학 연구와의 관계에 대한 의견을 먼저 제시하겠습니다. 함께. PNC (New Century의 철학), TLP, PI, OC, 소셜 월드 만들기 (MSW) 및이 두 천재에 관한 다른 책에 대한 나의 리뷰를 보는 데 도움이 될 것입니다. WS 프레임 워크라고합니다. Searle이 LSR (Logical Structure of Rationality)이라고하는이 프레임 워크와 DPHOT (Descriptive Psychology of Higher Order Thought)라고 부르는이 프레임 워크를 고려하면 동작에 대한 명확한 설명이 가능하지만 거의 모든 논의에서 완전히 빠지지 않습니다. 심지어 WS의 작품에서 그것은 명확하게 배치되지 않고 거의 모든 다른 사람에 그것은 단지 일반적인 비참한 결과와 함께 암시된다. 나는 W와 S에서 몇 가지 따옴표로 시작합니다. 이 따옴표는 무작위로 선택되지 않지만 연구의 10 년에서 결과와 함께 그들은 우리의 두 개의 가장 큰 설명 심리학자에서 행동 (인간의 본성)의 개요입니다. 하나는 그들을 이해한다면, 그들은 마음속으로 가서 (W가 분명히 한 바와 같이 언어와 크게 광범위하게) 깊이 침투하고 하나의 요구에 많은 지침을 제공 - 그것은 언어가 각 경우에 어떻게 작동하는지보고의 문제이며, 지금까지 언어의 심하게 분석 된 예를 찾을 수있는 가장 좋은 장소는 비트겐슈타인의 Nachlass의 20,000 페이지에있습니다. "심리학의 혼란과 불모심은 그것을 "젊은 과학"이라고 부르면 설명될 수 없습니다. 그 상태는 물리학의 그것과 비교되지 않습니다, 예를 들어, 그 처음에. (오히려 수학의 특정 지점의. 이론 설정.) 심리학의 경우 실험 적인 방법과 개념적 혼란이 있습니다. (다른 경우와 마찬가지로 개념적 혼란과 증거 방법). 실험 방법의 존재는 우리가 우리를 괴롭히는 문제를 해결할 수있는 수단이 있다고 생각하게합니다. 하지만 문제와 방법은 서로를 전달합니다." 비트겐슈타인 (PI p.232). (shrink)

Materialism, reductionism, behaviorism, functionalism, dynamic systems theory and computationalism are popular views, but they were shown by Wittgenstein to be incoherent. The study of behavior encompasses all of human life, but behavior is largely automatic and unconscious and even the conscious part, mostly expressed in language (which Wittgenstein equates with the mind), is not perspicuous, so it is critical to have a framework which Searle calls the Logical Structure of Rationality (LSR) and I call the Descriptive Psychology of Higher Order (...) Thought (DPHOT). After summarizing the framework worked out by Wittgenstein and Searle, as extended by modern reasoning research, I show the inadequacies in Carruther’s views, which pervade most discussions of behavior, including contemporary behavioral sciences. I maintain that his book is an amalgam of two books, one a summary of cognitive psychology and the other a summary of the standard philosophical confusions on the mind with some new jargon added. I suggest that the latter should be regarded as incoherent or as a cartoon view of life and that taking Wittgenstein at his word, we can practice successful self therapy by regarding the mind/body issue as a language/body issue. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) . (shrink)

唯物主义、还原主义、行为主义、功能主义、动态系统理论和计算主义是流行的观点,但维特根斯坦却认为它们不连贯。行为研究包括人类生活的所有内容,但行为在很大程度上是自动的和无意识的,甚至意识部分,大多用语言 表达(维特根斯坦与头脑等同),不是一种自在的,所以拥有西尔称为理性逻辑结构(LSR)的框架,我称之为高阶思想的描述性心理学(DPHOT)。在总结了维特根斯坦和西尔提出的框架后,现代推理研究扩展了这个框 架,我展示了Carruther观点中的不足之处,这些观点渗透到大多数关于行为的讨论,包括当代行为科学。我认为,他的书是两本书的混合体,一本是认知心理学的摘要,另一本是头脑中标准哲学混乱的总结,并添加了 一些新的行话。我建议,后者应该被视为不连贯或卡通的生活观点,以维特根斯坦的话,我们可以实践成功的自我治疗,把心灵/身体问题作为一个语言/身体问题。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Min d和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-20 19年第3次(2019年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日 (2019) .

唯物論、還元主義、行動論、機能主義、動的システム理論、計算論は一般的な見解であるが、ヴィトゲンシュタインは支離滅裂であると示した。行動の研究は人間の生活のすべてを包含するが、行動は主に自動で無意識であ り、主に言語で表現される意識的な部分(ウィトゲンシュタインは心と同一視する)でさえも、知覚的ではないので、サールが合理性の論理構造(LSR)と呼ぶ枠組みを持つことは重要であり、私は高次思考の記述心理学 (DPHOT)と呼ぶ。ヴィトゲンシュタインとサールが働いた枠組みを要約した後、現代の推論研究によって拡張されたように、私は現代の行動科学を含む行動のほとんどの議論に浸透するカーサーの見解の不十分さを示 します,。私は、彼の本は2冊の本のアマルガムであり、1つは認知心理学の要約であり、もう1つは新しい専門用語を追加して心の標準的な哲学的混乱の要約であることを維持しています。私は、後者は支離滅裂または人 生の漫画の見解とみなされるべきであり、彼の言葉でヴィトゲンシュタインを取ることは、私たちは言語/身体の問題として心/体の問題を考慮することによって成功した自己療法を実践できることを示唆しています。 現代の2つのシス・エムスの見解から人間の行動のための包括的な最新の枠組みを望む人は、私の著書「ルートヴィヒ・ヴィトゲンシュタインとジョン・サールの第2回(2019)における哲学、心理学、ミンと言語の論 理的構造」を参照することができます。私の著作の多くにご興味がある人は、運命の惑星における「話す猿--哲学、心理学、科学、宗教、政治―記事とレビュー2006-2019 第3回(2019)」と21世紀4日(2019年)の自殺ユートピア妄想st Century 4th ed (2019)などを見ることができます。 .

Materialismus, Reduktionismus, Verhaltenismus, Funktionalismus, Dynamische Systemtheorie und Computeralismus sind populäre Ansichten, aber sie wurden von Wittgenstein als inkohärent gezeigt. Das Studium des Verhaltens umfasst das gesamte menschlicheLeben, aber Verhalten ist weitgehend automatisch und unbewusst und selbst der bewusste Teil, der meist in Sprache ausgedrückt wird (was Wittgenstein mit dem Geist gleichsetzt), ist nicht auffällig, daher ist es entscheidend, einen Rahmen zu haben, den Searle die Logische Struktur der Rationalität (LSR) nennt und ich nenne die Deskriptive Psychologie des Höheren Ordnungsdenkens (DPHOT). (...) Nach der Zusammenfassung des von Wittgenstein und Searle ausgearbeiteten Rahmens, der durch moderne Argumentationsforschung erweitert wurde, zeige ich die Unzulänglichkeiten in Carruthers Ansichten, die die meisten Diskussionen über Verhalten durchdringen,, einschließlich zeitgenössischer Verhaltenswissenschaften. Ich behaupte, dass sein Buch ein Amalgam von zwei Büchern ist, eines eine Zusammenfassung der kognitiven Psychologie und das andere eine Zusammenfassung der Standard-philosophischen Verwirrungen auf dem Geist mit einigen neuen Jargon hinzugefügt. Ich schlage vor, dass letztere als inkohärent oder als eine Karikatur Sicht des Lebens betrachtet werden sollten und dass wir, wenn wir Wittgenstein beim Wort nehmen, eine erfolgreiche Selbsttherapie praktizieren können, indem wir die Körperfrage als Sprache/Körper-Frage betrachten. Wer aus der modernen zweisystems-Sichteinen umfassenden, aktuellen Rahmen für menschliches Verhalten wünscht, kann mein Buch "The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mindand Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019) konsultieren. Diejenigen,die sich für mehr meiner Schriften interessieren, können 'Talking Monkeys--Philosophie, Psychologie, Wissenschaft, Religion und Politik auf einem verdammten Planeten --Artikel und Rezensionen 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) und Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) und andere sehen. (shrink)

Le matérialisme, le réductionnisme, le comportementalisme, le fonctionnalisme, la théorie des systèmes dynamiques et le computationalisme sont des vues populaires, mais Wittgenstein leur a montré qu’ils étaient incohérents. L’étude du comportement englobe toute la vie humaine, mais le comportement est en grande partie automatique et inconscient et même la partie consciente, la plupart du temps exprimée dans le langage (que Wittgenstein équivaut à l’esprit), n’est pas perspicace, il est donc essentiel d’avoir un cadre que Searle appelle la structure logique de (...) la rationalité (LSR) et j’appelle la psychologie descriptive de la pensée de l’ordre supérieur (DPHOT). Après avoir résumé le cadre élaboré par Wittgenstein et Searle, tel qu’étendu par la recherche de raisonnement moderne, je montre les insuffisances dans les vues de Carruthers, qui imprègnent la plupart des discussions de comportement, y compris les sciences comportementales contemporaines. Je maintiens que son livre est un amalgame de deux livres, l’un un résumé de la psychologie cognitive et l’autre un résumé des confusions philosophiques standard sur l’esprit avec un nouveau jargon ajouté. Je suggère que ce dernier devrait être considéré comme incohérent ou comme une vue de dessin animé de la vie et que de prendre Wittgenstein à sa parole, nous pouvons pratiquer l’autothérapie réussie en considérant la question de l’esprit / corps comme une question de langue / corps. Ceux qui souhaitent un cadre complet à jour pour le comportement humain de la vue moderne de deux systemes peuvent consulter mon livre 'The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Ceux qui s’intéressent à plus de mes écrits peuvent voir «Talking Monkeys --Philosophie, Psychologie, Science, Religion et Politique sur une planète condamnée --Articles et revues 2006-2019 3e ed (2019) et Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2020) et d'autres. (shrink)

Материализм, редукционизм, биение, функционализм, теория динамических систем и вычислительность являются популярными взглядами, но они были показаны Витгенштейном как непоследовательные. Изучение поведения охватывает всю человеческуюжизнь, но поведение в значительной степени автоматический и бессознательный, и даже сознательная часть, в основном выражается в языке (который Витгенштейн приравнивает с умом), не является проницательным, поэтому очень важно иметь рамки, которые Сирл называет Логическая структура рациональности (LSR) и я называю описательной психологии мысли высшего порядка (DPHOT). После подведения итогов рамок, разработанных Витгенштейном и Сирлом, как это было (...) в предвидеи, я покажу недостатки взглядов Каррутера, которые пронизывает большинство дискуссий о поведении,, включая современные поведенческие науки. Я утверждаю, что его книга представляет собой смесь из двух книг, одна резюме когнитивной психологии, а другой резюме стандартных философских путаницы на уме с некоторыми новыми жаргона добавил. Я предлагаю, чтобы последний следует рассматривать как бессвязный или как мультфильм зрения на жизнь, и что принимая Витгенштейна на его слово, мы можем практиковать успешную самотерапию в отношении ума / тела вопрос, как язык / тело вопрос. Те, кто желает всеобъемлющего до современных рамок для человеческого поведения из современных двух systEms зрения могут проконсультироваться с моей книгой"Логическая структура философии, психологии, Минd иязык в Людвиг Витгенштейн и Джон Сирл" второй ред (2019). Те, кто заинтересован в более моих сочинений могут увидеть "Говоря обезьян - Философия, психология, наука, религия и политика на обреченной планете - Статьи и обзоры 2006-2019 3-й ed (2019) и suicidal утопических заблуждений в 21-мst веке 4-й ed (2019) th и другие. (shrink)

Il materialismo, il riduzionismo, il comportamentalismo, il funzionalismo, la teoria dei sistemi dinamici e il computazionalismo sono punti di vista popolari, ma sono stati mostrati da Wittgenstein come incoerenti. Lo studio del comportamento comprende tutta la vitaumana, ma il comportamento è in gran parte automatico e inconscio e anche la parte cosciente, per lo più espressa nel linguaggio (che Wittgenstein equivale alla mente), non è perspicua, quindi è fondamentale avere un quadro che Searle chiama la struttura logica della razionalità (LSR) (...) e io chiamo la psicologia descrittiva del pensiero dell'ordine superiore (DPHOT). Dopo aver riassunto il quadro elaborato da Wittgenstein e Searle, come esteso dalla ricerca di ragionamento moderno, mostro le inadeguatezze nelle opinioni di Carruther, che pervadono la maggior parte delle discussioni sul comportamento, comprese le scienze comportamentali contemporanee. Io sostengo che il suo libro è un amalgama di due libri, uno una sintesi della psicologia cognitiva e l'altro una sintesi delle confusioni filosofiche standard sulla mente con qualche nuovo gergo aggiunto. Suggerisco che quest'ultimo dovrebbe essere considerato incoerente o come una visione dei cartoni animati della vita e che prendendo Wittgenstein alla sua parola, possiamo praticare l'autoterapia di successo per quanto riguarda il problema della mente / corpo come un problema di lingua / corpo. Coloro che desiderano un quadro aggiornato completo per il comportamento umano dalla moderna vista a due systems possono consultare il mio libro 'La struttura logica dellafilosofia, psicologia, Mind e il linguaggio in Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Coloro che sono interessati a più dei miei scritti possono vedere 'TalkingMonkeys--Filosofia, Psicologia, Scienza, Religione e Politica su un Pianeta Condannato--Articoli e Recensioni 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) e Suicidal Utopian Delusions nel 21st Century 4th ed (2019) . (shrink)

El materialismo, el reduccionismo, el Behaviorismo, el funcionalismo, la teoría de los sistemas dinámicos y el computacionalismo son puntos de vista populares, pero Wittgenstein demostró que no era coherente. El estudio del comportamiento abarca toda la vida humana, pero el comportamiento es en gran medida automático e inconsciente e incluso la parte consciente, expresada principalmente en lenguaje (que Wittgenstein equipara con la mente), no es perspicuo, por lo que es fundamental tener un marco que Searle llame a la estructura lógica (...) de la racionalidad (LSR) y llamo a la psicología descriptiva del pensamiento de orden superior (DPHOT). Después de resumir el marco elaborado por Wittgenstein y Searle, ampliado por la investigación de razonamiento moderno, muestro las insuficiencias en las opiniones de Carruthers, que impregnan la mayoría de las discusiones sobre el comportamiento, incluyendo las Ciencias del comportamiento contemporáneas. Mantengo que su libro es una amalgama de dos libros, uno un resumen de la psicología cognitiva y el otro un resumen de las confusiones filosóficas estándar en la mente con una nueva jerga añadida. Sugiero que este último debe ser considerado como incoherente o como una vista de dibujos animados de la vida y que tomando Wittgenstein en su palabra, podemos practicar la autoterapia exitosa con respecto a la cuestión de la mente/cuerpo como un tema de idioma/cuerpo. -/- Aquellos que deseen un marco completo hasta la fecha para el comportamiento humano de la moderna dos sistemas punta de vista puede consultar mi libro 'La estructura lógica de la filosofía, la psicología, la mente y lenguaje en Ludwig Wittgenstein y John Searle ' 2a ED (2019). Los interesados en más de mis escritos pueden ver 'Monos parlantes--filosofía, psicología, ciencia, religión y política en un planeta condenado--artículos y reseñas 2006-2019 3a ED (2019) y Delirios utópicos suicidas en el siglo 21 4a Ed (2019) y otras. (shrink)

Materialismo, reducionismo, behaviorismo, funcionalismo, teoria dos sistemas dinâmicos e computacionalismo são visões populares, mas eles foram mostrados por Wittgenstein para ser incoerente. O estudo do comportamento abrange toda a vida humana, mas o comportamento é em grande parte automático e inconsciente e até mesmo a parte consciente, principalmente expressa em linguagem (que Wittgenstein equivale com a mente), não é perspicaz, por isso é fundamental ter um quadro que Searle chama a estrutura lógica da racionalidade (LSR) e eu chamo a psicologia (...) descritiva do pensamento de ordem superior (DPHOT). Depois de resumir a estrutura trabalhada por Wittgenstein e Searle, como estendido pela pesquisa de raciocínio moderno, eu mostro as inadequações nas visões de Carruther, que permeavam a maioria das discussões de comportamento, incluindo a conduta comportamental contemporânea Ciências. Eu mantenho que seu livro é um amálgama de dois livros, um um sumário da psicologia cognitiva e o outro um sumário das confusões filosóficas padrão na mente com algum jargão novo adicionado. Eu sugiro que este último deve ser considerado como incoerente ou como uma visão dos desenhos animados da vida e que tomar Wittgenstein em sua palavra, podemos praticar a autoterapia bem sucedida, em relação à questão da mente/corpo como uma questão de linguagem/corpo. -/- Aqueles que desejam um quadro até à data detalhado para o comportamento humano da opinião moderna dos dois sistemas consultar meu livros Falando Macacos 3ª Ed (2019), A Estrutura Lógica da Filosofia, Psicologia, Mente e Linguagem em Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle 2a Ed (2019), Suicídio Pela Democracia,4aEd(2019), Entendendo as Conexões entre Ciência, Filosofia, Psicologia, Religião, Política e Economia- Artigos e Análises 2006-2019 (2019), Ilusões Utópicas Suicidas no 21St século 5a Ed (2019), A Estrutura Lógica do Comportamento Humano (2019), e A Estrutura Lógica da Consciência (2019) y outras. (shrink)

Materialism, reductionism, behaviorism, functionalism, dynamic systems theory and computationalism are popular views, but they were shown by Wittgenstein to be incoherent. The study of behavior encompasses all of human life but behavior is largely automatic and unconscious and even the conscious part, mostly expressed in language (which Wittgenstein equates with the mind), is not perspicuous, so it is critical to have a framework which Searle calls the Logical Structure of Rationality (LSR) and I call the Descriptive Psychology of Higher Order (...) Thought (DPHOT). After summarizing the framework worked out by Wittgenstein and Searle, as extended by modern reasoning research, I comment on this first book in a trilogy on Human Nature by the leading authority on Wittgenstein. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my article The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language as Revealed in Wittgenstein and Searle 59p(2016). For all my articles on Wittgenstein and Searle see my e-book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Wittgenstein and Searle 367p (2016). Those interested in all my writings in their most recent versions may consult my e-book Philosophy, Human Nature and the Collapse of Civilization - Articles and Reviews 2006-2016 662p (2016). -/- All of my papers and books have now been published in revised versions both in ebooks and in printed books. -/- Talking Monkeys: Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet - Articles and Reviews 2006-2017 (2017) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071HVC7YP. -/- The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle--Articles and Reviews 2006-2016 (2017) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071P1RP1B. -/- Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st century: Philosophy, Human Nature and the Collapse of Civilization - Articles and Reviews 2006-2017 (2017) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0711R5LGX . (shrink)

Overall Johnston has done a phenomenal job and this book should be required reading for all those interested in behavior. It is quite striking that although W’s observations are fundamental to all study of behavior—linguistics, philosophy, psychology, history, anthropology, politics, sociology, and art, he is not even mentioned in most books and articles, with even the exceptions having little to say, and most of that distorted or flat wrong. There is a flurry of recent interest, at least in philosophy, and (...) possibly this preposterous situation will change, especially due to the continuing efforts of Peter Hacker and Daniele Moyal-Sharrock. I will first offer some comments on philosophy (descriptive psychology) and its relationship to contemporary psychological research as exemplified in the works of Searle (S) and Wittgenstein from the modern two systems of thought perspective as W did 60 years ago. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date account of Wittgenstein, Searle and their analysis of behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my article The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language as Revealed in Wittgenstein and Searle (2016). Those interested in all my writings in their most recent versions may download from this site my e-book ‘Philosophy, Human Nature and the Collapse of Civilization Michael Starks (2016)- Articles and Reviews 2006-2016’ by Michael Starks First Ed. 662p (2016). -/- All of my papers and books have now been published in revised versions both in ebooks and in printed books. -/- Talking Monkeys: Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet - Articles and Reviews 2006-2017 (2017) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071HVC7YP. -/- The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle--Articles and Reviews 2006-2016 (2017) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071P1RP1B. -/- Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st century: Philosophy, Human Nature and the Collapse of Civilization - Articles and Reviews 2006-2017 (2017) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0711R5LGX . (shrink)

Materialisme, reduksionisme, perilaku, fungsionalisme, teori sistem dinamis dan komputasi adalah pandangan yang populer, tetapi mereka ditunjukkan oleh Wittgenstein untuk menjadi tidak koheren. Penelaahan perilaku mencakup semua kehidupan manusia, tapi perilaku ini sebagian besar otomatis dan tidak sadar dan bahkan bagian sadar, sebagian besar dinyatakan dalam bahasa (mana Wittgenstein menyamakan dengan pikiran), tidak mencolok, jadi sangat penting untuk memiliki kerangka kerja yang Searle panggilan struktur Logis rasionalitas (LSR) dan saya sebut psikologi deskriptif dari urutan yang lebih tinggi berpikir (dphot). Setelah meringkas (...) kerangka kerja yang dikerjakan oleh Wittgenstein dan Searle, sebagaimana diperpanjang oleh penelitian penalaran modern, saya menunjukkan ketidakmampuan dalam pandangan carruther, yang meliputi sebagian besar diskusi perilaku, termasuk ilmu perilaku kontemporer. Saya berpendapat bahwa bukunya adalah amalgam dari dua buku, satu ringkasan dari psikologi kognitif dan yang lain ringkasan dari kebingungan filosofis standar pada pikiran dengan beberapa jargon baru ditambahkan. Saya menyarankan bahwa yang terakhir harus dianggap sebagai tidak koheren atau sebagai pandangan kartun kehidupan dan bahwa mengambil Wittgenstein pada Firman-Nya, kita dapat berlatih terapi diri yang sukses dengan mengenai masalah pikiran/tubuh sebagai masalah bahasa/tubuh. -/- Mereka yang ingin komprehensif up to date kerangka perilaku manusia dari dua sistem tampilan modern dapat berkonsultasi buku saya 'struktur Logis filsafat, psikologi, mind dan bahasa dalam Ludwig wittgenstein dan John Searle ' 2nd Ed (2019). Mereka yang tertarik pada tulisan saya lebih mungkin melihat 'berbicara monyet--filsafat, psikologi, ilmu, agama dan politik di planet yang ditakdirkan--artikel dan review 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) dan bunuh diri utopian delusi di 21st Century 4th Ed (2019) . (shrink)

Suppose you want to do as much good as possible. What should you do? According to members of the effective altruism movement—which has produced much of the thinking on this issue and counts several moral philosophers as its key protagonists—we should prioritise among the world’s problems by assessing their scale, solvability, and neglectedness. Once we’ve done this, the three top priorities, not necessarily in this order, are (1) aiding the world’s poorest people by providing life-saving medical treatments or alleviating poverty (...) itself, (2) preventing global catastrophic risks, such as those posed by nuclear war or rogue artificial intelligence, and (3) ending factory farming. These claims are both plausible and striking. If correct, they should prompt a stark revision of how we approach our altruistic activities. However, the project of determining how to do the most good—as opposed to say, whether we should do the most good—has only recently, within the last ten years, become the subject of serious academic attention. Many key claims have not yet been carefully scrutinised. This is a cause for concern: are effective altruists doing good badly? In this thesis, I critique and develop some of the latest claims about how individuals can do the most good. I do this in three areas: the value of saving lives (preventing premature deaths), how best to improve lives (making people happier during their lives), and cause prioritisation methodology (frameworks for determining which problems are the highest priorities). In each case, I raise novel theoretical considerations that, when incorporated, change the analysis. Roughly speaking, my main conclusions are (1) saving lives is not as straightforwardly good we tend to suppose, may not be good at all, and is not clearly a priority; (2) happiness can be measured through self-reports and, based on the self-reported evidence, treating mental health stands out as an overlooked problem that may be an even more cost-effective way to improve lives than alleviating poverty; (3) the cause prioritisation methodology proposed by effective altruists needs to be moderately reconceptualised and, when it is, it turns out it is not as illuminating a tool as we might have thought and hoped. (shrink)

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

I defend the following version of the ought-implies-can principle: (OIC) by virtue of conceptual necessity, an agent at a given time has an (objective, pro tanto) obligation to do only what the agent at that time has the ability and opportunity to do. In short, obligations correspond to ability plus opportunity. My argument has three premises: (1) obligations correspond to reasons for action; (2) reasons for action correspond to potential actions; (3) potential actions correspond to ability plus opportunity. In the (...) bulk of the paper I address six objections to OIC: three objections based on putative counterexamples, and three objections based on arguments to the effect that OIC conflicts with the is/ought thesis, the possibility of hard determinism, and the denial of the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. (shrink)

Do perceptual states necessarily constitute evidence epistemically supporting corresponding perceptual beliefs? Susanna Schellenberg thinks so. She argues that perceptual states, veridical or not, necessarily provide (or constitute) a kind of evidence (for the existence of the truth-maker) supporting corresponding perceptual beliefs. She uses “phenomenal evidence” as a label for this kind of evidence and calls her argument “The Phenomenal Evidence Argument.” Having introduced her project, we offer a reconstruction of Schellenberg’s argument. A key premise has it that, necessarily, for items (...) with a function, fulfillment of the function (the good case) is explanatorily and metaphysically prior to function failure (the bad case). We suggest that the etiological theory of functions renders this key premise plausible. However, Schellenberg rejects the etiological theory of functions and likewise the idea that the epistemic or warranting force of perceptual states is grounded in their being reliably linked to veridical perception. But then what supports the key premise? Schellenberg argues that accurate perception is a part of the nature of perceptual capacities because the nature of perceptual capacities is explained in terms of their function, and their function is to represent accurately. We suggest that Schellenberg is committed to an understanding of priority which doesn’t require any actual good cases—just possible ones. This reading, we argue, is too weak to support the key premise. Given Schellenberg’s commitments, it is not necessarily the case that perceptual states are evidence for a corresponding perceptual belief. Before concluding we discuss an overgeneralization objection. (shrink)

In this paper I defend a pure proceduralist conception of legitimacy that applies to epistemic democracy. This conception, which I call pure epistemic proceduralism, does not depend on procedure-independent standards for good outcomes and relies on a proceduralist epistemology. It identifies a democratic decision as legitimate if it is the outcome of a process that satisfies certain conditions of political and epistemic fairness. My argument starts with a rejection of instrumentalism–the view that political equality is only instrumentally valuable. I reject (...) instrumentalism on two grounds: (i) because it fails to respect reasonable value pluralism and to recognize the constitutive role of democratic procedures for legitimacy in pluralist societies, and (ii) because it neglects the constructive function of democratic decision-making. I then consider two alternatives to pure epistemic proceduralism: David Estlund's version of epistemic proceduralism and a Deweyan account of epistemic democracy. I argue that only pure epistemic proceduralism can make good on both shortcomings of instrumentalism, whereas each of the other two approaches only makes good on one and neglects the other. (shrink)

When one thinks—knows, believes, imagines—that something is the case, one’s thought has a topic: it is about something, towards which one’s mind is directed. What is the logic of thought, so understood? This book begins to explore the idea that, to answer the question, we should take topics seriously. It proposes a hyperintensional account of the propositional contents of thought, arguing that these are individuated not only by the set of possible worlds at which they are true, but also by (...) their topic: what they are about. The book then builds epistemic, doxastic, probabilistic, and conditional logics based on this view. It applies them to issues ranging from dogmatism, scepticism, and epistemic fallibilism, to imagination and suppositional reasoning, belief revision, framing effects, and the acceptability of indicative conditionals. (shrink)

Accounts of the concepts of function and dysfunction have not adequately explained what factors determine the line between low‐normal function and dysfunction. I call the challenge of doing so the line‐drawing problem. Previous approaches emphasize facts involving the action of natural selection (Wakefield 1992a, 1999a, 1999b) or the statistical distribution of levels of functioning in the current population (Boorse 1977, 1997). I point out limitations of these two approaches and present a solution to the line‐drawing problem that builds on the (...) second one. (shrink)

This paper examines a promising probabilistic theory of singular causation developed by David Lewis. I argue that Lewis' theory must be made more sophisticated to deal with certain counterexamples involving pre-emption. These counterexamples appear to show that in the usual case singular causation requires an unbroken causal process to link cause with effect. I propose a new probabilistic account of singular causation, within the framework developed by Lewis, which captures this intuition.

Throughout her philosophical writing, Margaret Cavendish is clear in stating that colours are real; they are not mere mind-dependent qualities that exist only in the mind of perceivers. This puts her at odds with other seventeenthcentury thinkers such as Galileo and Descartes who endorsed what would come to be known as the ‘primary-secondary quality distinction’. Cavendish’s argument for this view is premised on two claims. First, that colourless objects are inconceivable. Second, that if an object is inconceivable then it could (...) not possibly exist in nature. My aim in this paper is to explain why Cavendish accepts both premises of this argument. However, the repercussions of this paper go much further than just explaining why she thinks colourless objects cannot exist in nature and the upshots are twofold. First, it provides new insights into the fundamental role that perception plays in Cavendish’s metaphysics. While Cavendish’s view that all of nature perceives is well-established, I show that Cavendish is also committed to the view that all of nature is perceivable. Second, it provides the first in-depth discussion of Cavendish’s modal epistemology and her reasons for thinking that inconceivability entails impossibility (in nature). (shrink)

Conceptual combination performs a fundamental role in creating the broad range of compound phrases utilised in everyday language. This article provides a novel probabilistic framework for assessing whether the semantics of conceptual combinations are compositional, and so can be considered as a function of the semantics of the constituent concepts, or not. While the systematicity and productivity of language provide a strong argument in favor of assuming compositionality, this very assumption is still regularly questioned in both cognitive science and philosophy. (...) Additionally, the principle of semantic compositionality is underspecifi ed, which means that notions of both "strong" and "weak" compositionality appear in the literature. Rather than adjudicating between different grades of compositionality, the framework presented here contributes formal methods for determining a clear dividing line between compositional and non-compositional semantics. In addition, we suggest that the distinction between these is contextually sensitive. Compositionality is equated with a joint probability distribution modeling how the constituent concepts in the combination are interpreted. Marginal selectivity is introduced as a pivotal probabilistic constraint for the application of the Bell/CH and CHSH systems of inequalities. Non-compositionality is equated with a failure of marginal selectivity, or violation of either system of inequalities in the presence of marginal selectivity. This means that the conceptual combination cannot be modeled in a joint probability distribution, the variables of which correspond to how the constituent concepts are being interpreted. The formal analysis methods are demonstrated by applying them to an empirical illustration of twenty-four non-lexicalised conceptual combinations. (shrink)

Does political decision-making require experts or can a democracy be trusted to make correct decisions? This question has a long-standing tradition in political philosophy, going back at least to Plato’s Republic. Critics of democracy tend to argue that democracy cannot be trusted in this way while advocates tend to argue that it can. Both camps agree that it is the epistemic quality of the outcomes of political decision-making processes that underpins the legitimacy of political institutions. In recent political philosophy, epistemic (...) democrats have embraced this instrumentalist way of thinking about democracy. In this chapter, I argue that the attempt to defend democracy on epistemic instrumentalist grounds is self-undermining. I also develop an alternative – procedural – epistemic defence of democracy. I show that there is a prima facie epistemic case for democracy when there is no procedure-independent epistemic authority on the issue to be decided. (shrink)

We take up the challenge of developing an international network with capacity to survey the world's scientists on an ongoing basis, providing rich datasets regarding the opinions of scientists and scientific sub-communities, both at a time and also over time. The novel methodology employed sees local coordinators, at each institution in the network, sending survey invitation emails internally to scientists at their home institution. The emails link to a ‘10 second survey’, where the participant is presented with a single statement (...) to consider, and a standard five point Likert scale. In June 2023, a group of 30 philosophers and social scientists invited 20,085 scientists across 30 institutions in 12 countries to participate, gathering 6,807 responses to the statement 'Science has put it beyond reasonable doubt that COVID-19 is caused by a virus'. The study demonstrates that it is possible to establish a global network to quickly ascertain scientific opinion on a large international scale, with high response rate, low opt-out rate, and in a way that allows for significant (perhaps indefinite) repeatability. Measuring scientific opinion in this new way would be a valuable complement to currently available approaches, potentially informing policy decisions and public understanding across diverse fields. (shrink)

The main aim of this paper is to identify a type of fact-given warrant for action that is distinct from reason-based justification for action and defend the view that there are two types of practical warrant. The idea that there are two types of warrant is familiar in epistemology, but has not received much attention in debates on practical normativity. On the view that I will defend, normative facts, qua facts, give rise to entitlement warrant for action. But they do (...) not, qua facts, give rise to reason-based warrant. Normative practical reasons, I will argue, are true propositions that represent fact-based favouring and that are made true by normative facts. (shrink)

In this paper, I provide the first in-depth discussion of Susan Stebbing’s views concerning our experience of the passage of time – a key issue for many metaphysicians writing in the first half of the twentieth century. I focus on Stebbing’s claims about the passage of time in Philosophy and the Physicists and her disagreement with Arthur Eddington over how best to account for that experience. I show that Stebbing’s concern is that any attempt to provide a scientific account of (...) the passage of time will face problems, since the events described by physics are necessarily measured against the passage of time. I then identify views elsewhere in her philosophical corpus that can help shed light on this claim. Ultimately, I argue, Stebbing’s views on time should be construed as part of her wider commitment to ‘realism’. To be a realist, for Stebbing, is to accept a set of propositions which are a pre-requisite for even beginning to analyse the world around us. For Stebbing, I argue, part of what it means to be a realist is to accept our experience of the passage of time as something fundamental that cannot itself be subject to analysis. (shrink)

This reissue of his collection of early essays, Logico-Linguistic Papers, is published with a brand new introduction by Professor Strawson but, apart from minor ...

Martine Nida-Rümelin (1996) argues that color science indicates behaviorally undetectable spectrum inversion is possible and raises this possibility as an objection to functionalist accounts of visual states of color. I show that her argument does not rest solely on color science, but also on a philosophically controversial assumption, namely, that visual states of color supervene on physiological states. However, this assumption, on the part of philosophers or vision scientists, has the effect of simply ruling out certain versions of functionalism. While (...) Nida-Rümelin is quite right to search for empirical tests for claims about the nature of visual states, philosophical issues remain pivotal in determining the correctness of these claims. (shrink)

In this paper, we focus on Berkeley's reasons for accepting the ‘resemblance thesis’ which entails that for one thing to represent another those two things must resemble one another. The resemblance thesis is a crucial premise in Berkeley's argument from the ‘likeness principle’ in §8 of the Principles. Yet, like the ‘likeness principle’, the resemblance thesis remains unargued for and is never explicitly defended. This has led several commentators to provide explanations as to why Berkeley accepts the resemblance thesis and (...) why he also takes his opponents to do so too. We provide a contextual answer to this question, focusing on epistemological discussions concerning resemblance and representation in Early Modern Irish Philosophy. We argue that the resemblance thesis is implicit in early responses to William Molyneux's famous example of the ‘man born blind made to see’ and trace the ‘Molyneux man’ thought experiment as it is employed by Irish thinkers such as William King and Berkeley himself. Ultimately, we conclude that Berkeley's acceptance of the resemblance thesis can be explained by the Irish intellectual climate in which he was writing. (shrink)

In the history of modern philosophy systematic connections were assumed to hold between the modal concepts of logical possibility and necessity and the concept of conceivability. However, in the eyes of many contemporary philosophers, insuperable objections face any attempt to analyze the modal concepts in terms of conceivability. It is important to keep in mind that a philosophical explanation of modality does not have to take the form of a reductive analysis. In this paper I attempt to provide a response-dependent (...) account of the modal concepts in terms of conceivability along the lines of a nonreductive model of explanation. (shrink)

AI companies are racing to create artificial general intelligence, or “AGI.” If they succeed, the result will be human-level AI systems that can independently pursue high-level goals by formulating and executing long-term plans in the real world. Leading AI researchers agree that some of these systems will likely be “misaligned”–pursuing goals that humans do not desire. This goal mismatch will put misaligned AIs and humans into strategic competition with one another. As with present-day strategic competition between nations with incompatible goals, (...) the result could be violent and catastrophic conflict. Existing legal institutions are unprepared for the AGI world. New foundations for AGI governance are needed, and the time to begin laying them is now, before the critical moment arrives. -/- This Article begins to lay those new legal foundations. It is the first to think systematically about the dynamics of strategic competition between humans and misaligned AGI. The Article begins by showing, using formal game-theoretic models, that, by default, humans and AIs will be trapped in a prisoner’s dilemma. Both parties’ dominant strategy will be to permanently disempower or destroy the other, even though the costs of such conflict would be high. -/- The Article then argues that a surprising legal intervention could transform the game theoretic equilibrium and avoid conflict: AI rights. Not just any AI rights would promote human safety. Granting AIs the right not to be needlessly harmed–as humans have granted to certain non-human animals–would, for example, have little effect. Instead, to promote human safety, AIs should be given those basic private law rights–to make contracts, hold property, and bring tort claims–that law already extends to non-human corporations. Granting AIs these economic rights would enable long-run, small-scale, mutually-beneficial transactions between humans and AIs. This would, we show, facilitate a peaceful strategic equilibrium between humans and AIs for the same reasons economic interdependence tends to promote peace in international relations. Namely, the gains from trade far exceed those from war. Throughout, we argue that human safety, rather than AI welfare, provides the right framework for developing AI rights. This Article explores both the promise and the limits of AI rights as a legal tool for promoting human safety in an AGI world. (shrink)

In recent years, it has been argued more than once that situations determine our conduct to a much greater extent than our character does. This argument rests on the findings of social psychologists such as Stanley Milgram, who have popularized the idea that we can all be brought to harm innocent others. An increasing number of philosophers and ethicists make use of such findings, and some of them have argued that this so-called situationist challenge fatally undermines virtue ethics. As virtue (...) ethics is currently the most popular underpinning for ethics education in the military, it is important to know to what extent the claim situationists make is correct. Fortunately, a closer look indicates that an interactionist perspective, with our character and the situation interplaying, is more accurate than the situationist perspective. (shrink)

Berkeley’s likeness principle is the claim that “an idea can be like nothing but an idea”. The likeness principle is intended to undermine representationalism: the view (that Berkeley attributes to thinkers like Descartes and Locke) that all human knowledge is mediated by ideas in the mind which represent material objects. Yet, Berkeley appears to leave the likeness principle unargued for. This has led to several attempts to explain why Berkeley accepts it. In contrast to ‘metaphysical’ and ‘epistemological’ interpretations available in (...) the literature, in this paper I defend a ‘conceptual’ interpretation. I argue that Berkeley accepts the likeness principle on the basis of (i) his commitment to the transparency of ideas, and (ii) his account of resemblance which he sets out in his works on vision. Thus, I provide an explanation for Berkeley’s reasons for accepting the likeness principle which, appropriately, focuses on his views concerning ideas and likeness. (shrink)

Historically, scientific and engineering expertise has been key in shaping research and innovation policies, with benefits presumed to accrue to society more broadly over time. But there is persistent and growing concern about whether and how ethical and societal values are integrated into R&I policies and governance, as we confront public disbelief in science and political suspicion toward evidence-based policy-making. Erosion of such a social contract with science limits the ability of democratic societies to deal with challenges presented by new, (...) disruptive technologies, such as synthetic biology, nanotechnology, genetic engineering, automation and robotics, and artificial intelligence. Many policy efforts have emerged in response to such concerns, one prominent example being Europe's Eighth Framework Programme, Horizon 2020, whose focus on “Responsible Research and Innovation” provides a case study for the translation of such normative perspectives into concrete policy action and implementation. Our analysis of this H2020 RRI approach suggests a lack of consistent integration of elements such as ethics, open access, open innovation, and public engagement. On the basis of our evaluation, we suggest possible pathways for strengthening efforts to deliver R&I policies that deepen mutually beneficial science and society relationships. (shrink)

This paper argues for the general proper functionalist view that epistemic warrant consists in the normal functioning of the belief-forming process when the process has forming true beliefs reliably as an etiological function. Such a process is reliable in normal conditions when functioning normally. This paper applies this view to so-called testimony-based beliefs. It argues that when a hearer forms a comprehension-based belief that P (a belief based on taking another to have asserted that P) through the exercise of a (...) reliable competence to comprehend and filter assertive speech acts, then the hearer's belief is prima facie warranted. The paper discusses the psychology of comprehension, the function of assertion, and the evolution of filtering mechanisms, especially coherence checking. (shrink)

Inferentialism is the view that representational content is explained by lingual or mental states interacting according to inferential rules. Mendelovici and Bourget have argued against inferentialism that rules of inference do not sufficiently constrain content. This paper argues that their argument can be further strengthened such that its conclusion yields that content and inferential roles are strictly independent. It will then be argued that this conclusion is untenable and that the argument, rather than undermining inferentialism, corrodes the model theoretic foundations (...) of standard philosophical semantics. The paper concludes with some hints towards an alternative semantic paradigm. (shrink)

When is a testimony-based belief justified? According to so-called "Anti-Reductionism," the principle that a hearer is prima facie justified to take what another tells them at face value is true. I call this position "Liberal Foundationalism." I call it "liberal" for it is more liberal than "Moderate Foundationalism" that holds that perception-based beliefs are prima facie justified but testimony-based beliefs are not. Liberal Foundationalism has two interpretations: the principle is a contingent empirical truth, or an a priori necessary truth. I (...) call the view that the principle is a priori necessary "Liberal Fundamentalism." This chapter defends Liberal Fundamentalism against objections in the first half, and then in the second half it introduces "Weak Liberal Fundamentalism," the view that it is a priori necessary that testimony provides some epistemic support, but perhaps not enough, absent defeat, for knowledge. In later work I abandon the view that the principle is a priori necessary, but I still maintain the distinction between Strong and Weak variants of the principle, and the replies to many of the objections to the principle. (shrink)

According to the Acceptance Principle, a person is entitled to accept a proposition that is presented as true (asserted) and that is intelligible to him or her, unless there are stronger reasons not to. Burge assumes this Principle and then argues that it has an apriori justification, basis or rationale. This paper expounds Burge's teleological reliability framework and the details of his a priori justification for the Principle. It then raises three significant doubts.

A conception of legitimacy is at the core of normative theories of democracy. Many different conceptions of legitimacy have been put forward, either explicitly or implicitly. In this article, I shall first provide a taxonomy of conceptions of legitimacy that can be identified in contemporary democratic theory. The taxonomy covers both aggregative and deliberative democracy. I then argue for a conception of democratic legitimacy that takes the epistemic dimension of public deliberation seriously. In contrast to standard interpretations of epistemic democracy, (...) however, the conception I put forward avoids procedure-independent standards of correctness. Instead, it relies on a procedural social epistemology and defines legitimacy entirely in terms of the fairness of procedures. I call this conception of democratic legitimacy `Pure Epistemic Proceduralism'. I shall argue that it should be preferred over `Rational Epistemic Proceduralism', the conception of legitimacy that underlies the standard interpretation of epistemic democracy. Key Words: legitimacy • deliberative democracy • epistemic democracy • social epistemology. (shrink)

You may not know me well enough to evaluate me in terms of my moral character, but I take it you believe I can be evaluated: it sounds strange to say that I am indeterminate, neither good nor bad nor intermediate. Yet I argue that the claim that most people are indeterminate is the conclusion of a sound argument—the indeterminacy paradox—with two premises: (1) most people are fragmented (they would behave deplorably in many and admirably in many other situations); (2) (...) fragmentation entails indeterminacy. I support (1) by examining psychological experiments in which most participants behave deplorably (e.g., by maltreating “prisoners” in a simulated prison) or admirably (e.g., by intervening in a simulated theft). I support (2) by arguing that, according to certain plausible conceptions, character evaluations presuppose behavioral consistency (lack of fragmentation). Possible reactions to the paradox include: (a) denying that the experiments are relevant to character; (b) upholding conceptions according to which character evaluations do not presuppose consistency; (c) granting that most people are indeterminate and explaining why it appears otherwise. I defend (c) against (a) and (b). (shrink)