Alexander Bird – Publications
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
KRITERION | Journal of Philosophy
KRITERION JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY Volume 33, Issue 3 2019 Clara Goebel: A Hybrid Account of Scientific Progress: Find- ing Middle Ground Between the Epistemic and the Noetic Accounts 1 Brian Lightbody: Letting the Truth Out: Children, Na¨ıve Truth, and Deflationism .................................................17 Pawe l Pijas: Towards a Unified Interpretation of Bernard Williams's Philosophical Projects ................................43 Michael Samhammer: Relative to What? { Interpretation with higher-place predicates ...........................................75 Giuseppe Flavio Artese: Conference Report: SOPhiA 2019 . 105 EDITORIAL KRITERION { Journal of Philosophy is a forum for contributions in any field of analytic philosophy. We welcome submissions of previously unpublished papers, not under consideration for publication anywhere else. Submissions are reviewed in double-blind peer review mode. Con- tributions should meet the following conditions: (1) The content must be philosophical. (2) The language must be intelligible to a broader readership. (3) The contribution must contain a traceable argumentation. The length should be between 4000 and 8000 words. Only contributions in English (preferred) and German are accepted. IMPRESSUM Editors-in-Chief: Christian J. Feldbacher-Escamilla, Alexander Gebharter Editorial Board: Albert J. J. Anglberger, Laurenz Hudetz, Christine Schurz, Christian Wallmann E-Mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.kriterion-journal-of-philosophy.org Indexing: KRITERION { Journal of Philosophy -
Comments on Sider's Four Dimensionalism
Sally Haslanger MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy [email protected] 12/30/03 Comments on Sider I. Introduction Congratulations to Ted on the APA Prize. Ted’s book Four Dimensionalism is an impressive piece of work, and it is an honor to be included in this session. The book is a paradigm of systematic work in analytic metaphysics. It demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of a variety of debates over time, persistence, material constitution, as well as a sensitivity to background issues concerning methodology in metaphysics. It is a significant accomplishment. I’ll start by giving a very brief summary of Sider’s position and will identify some points on which my own position differs from his. I’ll then raise four issues, viz., how to articulate the 3-dimensionalist view, the trade-offs between Ted’s stage view of persistence and endurance with respect to intrinsic properties, the endurantist’s response to the argument from vagueness, and finally more general questions about what’s at stake in the debate. I don’t believe that anything I say raises insurmountable problems for Sider’s view; and in fact, I’m sure he’s in a better position to defend his view more convincingly than I’m able to defend mine. However, there is plenty worth discussing further. Sider defends what he calls “four dimensionalism,” but we should start by being clear how he understands this position.1 He defines “four dimensionalism” as “an ontology of the material world according to which objects have temporal as well as spatial parts.” (xiii) So the thesis of four-dimensionalism Sider is interested in is a thesis about objects and their parts. -
David Lewis on Persistence1 Katherine Hawley University of St Andrews
David Lewis on Persistence1 Katherine Hawley University of St Andrews David Lewis takes a clear stance on persistence: Next, persistence through time. I take the view that nothing endures identically through time. (Except universals, if such there be; their loci would coincide with relations of qualitative match, would indeed constitute these relations, so they would commit no violations of Humean Supervenience.) Persisting particulars consist of temporal parts, united by various kinds of continuity. To the extent that the continuity is spatiotemporal and qualitative, of course it supervenes upon the arrangement of qualities. But the continuity that often matters most is causal continuity: the thing stays more or less the same because of the way its later temporal parts depend causally for their existence and character on the ones just before. So the spatiotemporal boundaries of persisting things, for example people, can supervene on the arrangement of qualities, provided that causation does. (Lewis, 1986b, xiii) To persist is to exist at more than one time, to transcend the momentary. How do things achieve this? We might answer with talk of thermodynamic stability, molecular bonds, photosynthesis, the porcupine’s spines, German manufacturing standards, legal protection of ancient monuments, or the uncanny ability of children to extract care from their parents. In Lewis’s terms, such answers explain the existence of spatiotemporal and qualitative continuities over time in causal terms, by reference either to the causal mechanisms which directly underpin such continuities, or to their preconditions and external circumstances. Explanations may differ according to the kind of object in question: German washing machines and yew trees are both long- lasting, relative to other types of appliance or tree respectively, but the reasons for their longevity are quite different. -
Redalyc.What Can Cognitive Science Tell Us About Scientific Revolutions?
THEORIA. Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia ISSN: 0495-4548 [email protected] Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea España BIRD, Alexander What can cognitive science tell us about scientific revolutions? THEORIA. Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia, vol. 27, núm. 3, 2012, pp. 293- 321 Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea Donostia-San Sebastián, España Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=339730820003 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative What can cognitive science tell us about scientific revolutions?∗ Alexander BIRD Received: 29.6.2012 Final Version: 30.7.2012 BIBLID [0495-4548 (2012) 27: 75; pp. 293-321] ABSTRACT: Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions is notable for the readiness with which it drew on the results of cognitive psychology. These naturalistic elements were not well received and Kuhn did not subsequently develop them in his published work. Nonetheless, in a philosophical climate more receptive to naturalism, we are able to give a more positive evaluation of Kuhn’s proposals. Recently, philosophers such as Nersessian, Nickles, Ander- sen, Barker, and Chen have used the results of work on case-based reasoning, analogical thinking, dynamic frames, and the like to illuminate and develop various aspects of Kuhn’s thought in Structure. In particular this work aims to give depth to the Kuhnian concepts of a paradigm and incommensurability. -
The Powerlessness of Necessity’ in Noûs 44:4 (2010) 725–739
Schrenk, Markus (2010) ‘The Powerlessness of Necessity’ in Noûs 44:4 (2010) 725–739 THE POWERLESSNESS OF NECESSITY MARKUS SCHRENK ABSTRACT This paper concerns anti-Humean intuitions about connections in nature. It argues for the existence of a de re link that is not necessity. — Some anti-Humeans tacitly assume that metaphysical necessity can be used for all sorts of anti-Humean desires. Metaphysical necessity is thought to stick together whatever would be loose and separate in a Hume world, as if it were a kind of universal superglue. I argue that this is not feasible. Metaphysical necessity might connect synchronically co-existent properties—kinds and their essential features, for example—but it is difficult to see how it could also serve as the binding force for successions of events. That is, metaphysical necessity seems not to be fit for diachronic, causal affairs in which causal laws, causation, or dispositions are involved. A different anti-Humean connection in nature has to do that job. My arguments focus mainly on a debate which has been the battleground for Humean vs. anti-Humean intuitions for many decades— namely, the analysis of dispositional predicates—but I believe (but do not argue here) that the arguments generalise to causation and causal laws straightforwardly. (ca. 7,200 words) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank the participants of various workshops who have listened and commented on earlier versions of this paper and especially Helen Beebee, Alexander Bird, Andreas Hüttemann, Francis Longworth, Albert Newen, Samir Okasha, Johannes Persson, and Robin Stenwall. I am most grateful to Stephen Mumford and his Nottingham Metaphysics group, including Rani Lill Anjum and Charlotte Mattheson, who have patiently listened to and criticised earlier versions of the paper. -
Katherine Hawley [email protected]; +44 1334 462469; University of St Andrews, St Andrews, KY16 9AJ, UK (Full Version, Last Updated June 2015)
CV – Katherine Hawley [email protected]; +44 1334 462469; University of St Andrews, St Andrews, KY16 9AJ, UK (Full version, last updated June 2015) 2008-present Professor of Philosophy, University of St Andrews. 1999-2008 Lecturer, then Senior Lecturer, University of St Andrews. (Spring 2003 Gillespie (Associate) Professor, College of Wooster, Ohio.) 1997-1999 Sidgwick Research Fellow, Newnham College Cambridge. 1994-1997 Ph.D., University of Cambridge (graduated June 1998). 1993-1994 M.Phil., History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge. 1989-1992 B.A. Hons., Physics and Philosophy, University of Oxford. Major Responsibilities 2014 Deputy Chair of Philosophy REF panel 2009-2014 Head of School of Philosophical, Anthropological and Film Studies, University of St Andrews 2005-2010 Editorial Chair, Philosophical Quarterly 2008 Member of Philosophy RAE panel (For other editorial work, committee service and responsibilities, see below.) Grants and Prizes Leverhulme Major Research Fellowship, 2014-16 (£94,445) Local PI for Marie Curie Initial Training Network 2009-2013 (value to St Andrews around £153K). AHRB Research Leave award 2004 (£13,153). Philip Leverhulme Prize 2003 (Research prize of £50,000) British Academy Joint Activities grant (£4,500 to fund collaboration with philosophers at the University of Western Washington during 2003-5). Authored Books Trust: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press (2012) (121 pp.) How Things Persist, Oxford: Oxford University Press (2001) (xi + 221 pp.) Selections reprinted in Haslanger and Fay (eds.) Persistence, MIT Press (2004). Co-Edited Books The Admissible Contents of Perception, edited with Fiona MacPherson, Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell (2011). Re-issue of Philosophical Quarterly special issue 59.236, with a new introduction sole-authored by FM. -
Group Belief
GROUP BELIEF forthcoming in The Routledge Handbook of Social Epistemology (eds. Miranda Fricker, Peter Graham, David Henderson, and Nikolaj Pedersen) Alexander Bird 1 Introduction We ascribe, so it appears, beliefs and other mental states to groups and social col- lectivities as well as to individual persons: “Our poetry reading group believes that Browning is more challenging that Tennyson” “The court believes that the defendant is guilty” “GlaxoSmithKline believes it has discovered a cure for dementia” “Neuroscientists believe that the brain is plastic” “The stock market believes that Brexit will be bad for British business” “North Korea knows how to build an atomic bomb” This article looks at different ways of understanding statements such as these. (At the outset, we should note that there may be no uniform phenomenon of group belief—it might be that different kinds of group belief statement have different cor- rect readings.) While the foreground topic falls within social epistemology, in the background are questions of social ontology. The nature of the individual believer and their ex- istence are not especially pertinent questions for those trying to understand the na- ture of individual belief. By contrast, the nature of the group or of the collectivity and whether it really exists, and if so what makes it exist, are important background questions for those trying to understand group belief. Consider the following statement. “With their team three-nil down, the crowd of Rangers’ fans knew that its team could not win, and began leaving the stadium before the final whistle.” In this statement, the Rangers fans are treated as some kind of collectivity—as a group they began leaving the stadium early, which is to say, roughly, that some sizeable proportion left early, not that they all or most made a move to leave early. -
Alexander Bird – Publications
Alexander Bird – Publications All papers are listed below with links to publishers’ websites or pdfs. If necessary please copy and paste the URL into your browser or search for the paper on the King’s Research Portal at: https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/alexander.bird.html For details of citations see: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8PytVRIAAAAJ Books • Knowing Science Oxford: Oxford University Press (forthcoming). • Nature’s Metaphysics: Laws and Properties Oxford: Oxford University Press (2007) (231pp). Reviewed by Helen Beebee Times Literary Supplement 5511 (14 November 2008) http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plajb/research/reviews/Beebee_review_TLS.pdf John Carroll Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=13333 Anjan Chakravartty Metascience 18 (2009) http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plajb/research/reviews/Chakravartty_Metascience.pdf Stefan Storrie Review of Metaphysics 63 (2009) http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plajb/research/reviews/Storrie_Review_of_Metaphysics.pdf Marc Lange Philosophical Review 119 (2010) http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plajb/research/reviews/Lange_Phil_Review.pdf Simon Bostock Philosophy 85 (2010) http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plajb/research/reviews/Bostock_Philosophy.pdf Barbara Vetter Philosophiegeschichte und Logische Analyse 12 (2009) http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plajb/research/reviews/Vetter_Logical_Analysis.pdf Peter Menzies (Critical Notice) Analysis Reviews 69 (2009) http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plajb/research/reviews/Menzies_Analysis.pdf Max Kistler Mind 119 (2010) http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plajb/research/reviews/Kistler_Mind.pdf Gerhard Schurz Erkenntnis 74 (2011) http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plajb/research/reviews/Schurz_Erkenntnis.pdf Lauren Ashwell Protosociology (2012) http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plajb/research/reviews/Ashwell_ProtoSociology.pdf • Thomas Kuhn Chesham: Acumen Press; Princeton: Princeton University Press (2000) (308pp). -
Michael Traynor Phd Thesis
MODAL ARGUMENTS, POSSIBLE EVIDENCE AND CONTINGENT METAPHYSICS Michael Thomas Traynor A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews 2017 Full metadata for this item is available in St Andrews Research Repository at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/15595 This item is protected by original copyright Modal Arguments, Possible Evidence and Contingent Metaphysics. Michael Thomas Traynor This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment for the degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews Date of submission: 23/09/2016 1 Abstract. The present work explores various ways in which contingent evidence can impact metaphysics, while advocating that, just as a scientific realist allows for ampliative inferences to the unobservable, ampliative inferences from possible evidence can warrant possibility claims that lie beyond the reach of sensorial imagination. In slogan form: possible evidence is a guide to possibility. Drawing on Shoemaker’s (1969) argument for the possibility of time without change, I advocate the following principle: If there is a possible world at which the observable facts make it objectively reasonable to conclude that p, then we should conclude that p is possibly true. This provides a route to contingentism in metaphysics, for, if one considers that there are worlds in which the observable facts make it objectively reasonable to conclude that p, and worlds in which the observable facts make it objectively reasonable to conclude that not-p, then my principle tells us that we should conclude that possibly-p and possibly not-p, i.e. -
CV – Katherine Hawley
CV – Katherine Hawley (Full version, last updated March 2019) [email protected]; +44 1334 462469; Department of Philosophy, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, KY16 9AJ, UK 2008-present Professor of Philosophy, University of St Andrews. 1999-2008 Lecturer, then Senior Lecturer, University of St Andrews. (Spring 2003 Gillespie (Associate) Professor, College of Wooster, Ohio.) 1997-1999 Sidgwick Research Fellow, Newnham College Cambridge. 1994-1997 Ph.D., University of Cambridge (graduated June 1998). 1993-1994 M.Phil., History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge. 1989-1992 B.A. Hons., Physics and Philosophy, University of Oxford. Major Responsibilities 2014 Deputy Chair of Philosophy REF panel 2009-2014 Head of School of Philosophical, Anthropological and Film Studies, University of St Andrews 2005-2010 Editorial Chair, Philosophical Quarterly 2008 Member of Philosophy RAE panel (For other editorial work, committee service and responsibilities, see below.) Grants, Prizes, Honours Royal Society of Edinburgh workshop grant 2018-19 for ‘Exoplanet Ethics’ (£8000). St Leonards scholarship, full funding for interdisciplinary Ph.D. on privacy, 2018-21. SGSAH Applied Research Collaborative scholarship, full funding for Ph.D. collaboration with Audit Scotland, 2017-20. Grant from Philosophy and Science of Self-Control project, 2016-17 (US$67,716). Elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 2016. Leverhulme Major Research Fellowship, 2014-16 (£94,445) Local PI for Marie Curie Initial Training Network 2009-2013 (value to St Andrews around £153K). AHRB Research Leave award 2004 (£13,153). Philip Leverhulme Prize 2003 (Research prize of £50,000) British Academy Joint Activities grant (£4,500 to fund collaboration with philosophers at the University of Western Washington during 2003-5). -
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science the Structure of Objects
This article was downloaded by: [University of Colorado, Boulder campus] On: 26 January 2011 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 785022307] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37- 41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK International Studies in the Philosophy of Science Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713427740 The Structure of Objects Katherine Hawleya a Departments of Philosophy, University of St Andrews, Online publication date: 06 January 2011 To cite this Article Hawley, Katherine(2010) 'The Structure of Objects', International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 24: 3, 336 — 339 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/02698595.2010.522418 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2010.522418 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. -
Testimony and Knowing How
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 41 (2010) 397–404 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Studies in History and Philosophy of Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsa Testimony and knowing how Katherine Hawley Department of Philosophy, University of St Andrews, Fife KY16 9AL Scotland, UK article info abstract Keywords: Much of what we learn from talking and listening does not qualify as testimonial knowledge: we can Knowledge how learn a great deal from other people without simply accepting what they say as being true. In this article, Practical knowledge I examine the ways in which we acquire skills or knowledge how from our interactions with other people, Tacit knowledge and I discuss whether there is a useful notion of testimonial knowledge how. Testimony Skills Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Assertion When citing this paper, please use the full journal title Studies in History and Philosophy of Science ‘‘Another topic in the epistemology of testimony that particu- 1. What is testimonial knowledge? larly interests us concerns the acquisition of non-propositional knowledge, skill or know-how. How does this form of learning dif- Epistemologists care about testimony because it can be a source fer from the standard cases considered in the literature on testi- of knowledge. In the paradigmatic case a speaker who knows some mony?” (Kusch and Lipton, 2002, p. 211). proposition p tells a listener that p, and the listener thereby ac- Sometimes you can figure out for yourself how to do something, quires testimonial knowledge that p. Some epistemologists think but sometimes you rely upon the kindness of others.