DOCSLIB.ORG

Curriculum Vitae

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

JOHN HAWTHORNE Updated October 2018 PERSONAL DETAILS: BORN: Birmingham, England May 25, 1964 ADDRESS: USC School of Philosophy 3709 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles CA 90089 EMAIL: [email protected] AWARDS AND FELLOWSHIPS Part of three person Templeton Award (with Yoaav Isaacs and Aron Wall) for two year project on fine-tuning. Fellow of British Academy (elected 2013) Visiting Fellowship, Australian National University (for Summer 2014) Project Leader of New Insights In Religious Epistemology, a three year project at Oxford funded by the Templeton Foundation (since 2012). Visiting Lecturership, University of Helsinki, 2012. Nelson Visiting Fellow, Michigan University, 2011. Centre for Study of Mind and Language Project at University of Oslo. Project Associate since 2009. Visting Fellowship at University of Oxford 2005. Visiting Astor Lecturer, Oxford 2004. Research Fellowship at Australian National University (1993-1995) Grant from Australian Research Council for work on Grammar of Meaning book, 1991- 1993. Dissertation Prize for best Dissertation at Syracuse University (1991) First Class Honors, University of Manchester (1985) ACADEMIC POSITIONS: 1 Professor of Philosophy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA (part-time 2013-July 2015, full time from July 2015). Waynflete Professor of Metaphysical Philosophy, Magdalen College, Oxford, UK (2006 to July 2015) Professor of Philosophy (part-time), Princeton University (2009-2012) Professor, Rutgers University (2001-2006) Professor, Syracuse University (1996-2001) Assistant Professor, Arizona State University (1995-1996) Assistant Professor, University of New South Wales (1991-1995) EDUCATION: PhD. Syracuse University (1991) B.A. in Philosophy and Politics, University of Manchester (1985) 2 PUBLICATIONS: BOOKS Monographs Narrow Content (with Juhani Yli-Vakkuri, Oxford University Press, 2018). Metaphysics (forthcoming, Princeton University Press) (with David Manley),The Reference Book (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) (with Herman Cappelen),Relativism and Monadic Truth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). Knowledge and Lotteries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003. (with Jan Cover),Substance and Individuation in Leibniz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). (with Mark Norris Lance),The Grammar of Meaning: Normativity and Semantic Content (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Collected Papers Metaphysical Essays (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006), 1-312 (includes six previously unpublished essays.), Epistemological Essays (in preparation for Oxford University Press, will include some previously unpublished essays). Edited Collections (with Matt Benton and Dani Rabinowitz) God, Belief and Knowledge: New Insights (Oxford University Press, 2018) (with Lee Walters), Conditionals, Probability and Paradox: Themes from the Philosophy of Dorothy Edgington, forthcoming Oxford University Press. (with Theodore Sider and Dean W. Zimmerman), Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007). (with Tamar Szabó Gendler),Perceptual Experience (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). 3 (with Tamar Szabó Gendler), Conceivability and Possibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). (with Michaelis Michael), Philosophy in Mind: The Place of Philosophy in the Study of Mind (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press, 1994). CHAPTERS AND ARTICLES “The Necessity of Mathematics (with Juhani Yli-Vakkuri), forthcoming Nous. ‘Pragmatic Encroachment and Closure’ (with Charity Anderson), forthcoming in volume of papers on pragmatic encroachment, edited by Brian Kim and Matthew McGrath (Routledge). ‘Operator Arguments Revisited’ (with Juhani Yli-Vakkuri), forthcoming Philosophical Studies. ‘Plenitude in Metaphysics’ (with Maegan Fairchild), forthcoming in special issue of Philosophy. ‘Possible Patterns’ (with Jeffrey Russell), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics ‘Reflections on Reasons’ (with Ofra Magidor), forthcoming in Oxford Handbook on Reasons and Normativity. ‘Fine-tuning fine-tuning’, with Yoaav Isaacs, Hawthorne, Rabinowitz and Benton (eds.), God, Belief and Knowledge, Oxford University Press, 2018 (also co-author of introduction to that volume). ‘More Misapprehensions abut the Fine-Tuning Argument’ (with Yoaav Isaacs), Royal Institute of Philosophy supplement, volume 81, 2017. ‘Scotus on Universals’, Oxford Studies in Medieval Philosophy 4, 2017 . ‘Scepticism’ (with Billy Dunaway), forthcoming in Abraham and Aquino, eds., Oxford Handbook for the Philosophy of Theology. ‘The Epistemic ‘Ought’’, forthcoming in Hawthorne and Walters, eds., Conditionals, Probability and Paradox: Themes from the philosophy of Dorothy Edgington. 4 ‘Belief is Weak’ (with Daniel Rothschild and Levi Spectre), Philosophical Studies, 173, 2016, 1393-1404. ‘Some Remarks on Imagination and Convention,’ Mind and Language 31, 2016, 625- 634. ‘Higher Order Free Logic and the Kaplan-Prior Paradox’ (with Andrew Bacon and Gabriel Uzquino), Canadian Journal of Philosophy 46, 2016, 493-541. ‘General Dynamic Trivality Theorems’ The Philosophical Review 125, 2016, 303-339. ‘Evil and Evidence’ (with Yoaav Isaacs and Matthew Benton), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion, 7, 2016, 1-31.. ‘Cretan Deductions’ (with Rachel Fraser), Philosophical Perspectives 29, 2015, 163-178. ‘Comments on Transient Truths’, Inquiry 2015, 619-626. ‘Knowledge, Practical Adequacy and Stakes’ (with Charity Anderson), forthcoming in Oxford Studies in Epistemology. ‘Embedding Epistemic Modals’, (with Cian Dorr) Mind 122 (2013), 867-914. ‘Semantic Plasticity and Speech Reports’ (with Cian Dorr), The Philosophical Review 123, 2014, 281-338. ‘Knowledge from False Belief’ (with Dani Rabinowitz), forthcoming in OUP volume on Gettier problem. ‘Knowing Against the Odds’, (with Cian Dorr and Jeremy Goodman), Philosophical Studies 170, 2014, 277-287. ‘Groupthink’ (with Lara Buchak and Jeffrey Russell), Philosophical Studies 172, 2015, 1287-1309 (reprinted in The Philosophers Annual). ‘Naturalness’ (with Cian Dorr) Zimmerman and Bennett, eds., Oxford Studies in Metaphysics (2013). ‘Aquinas on Faith and Knowledge’ in John Marenbon, ed., Continuity and Innovation in Medieval Philosophy, Oxford University Press (2013) ‘Knowledge and Epistemic Necessity,’ Philosophical Studies 158, 2012, 493-501. 5 ‘Some Comments on Fricker’s ‘Stating and Insinuating’,Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 86, 95-108 (2012). ‘Disagreement without Transparency: Some Bleak Thoughts’ (with Amia Srinivasan) in Lackey and Christensen, eds., The Epistemology of Disagreement, New Essays, Oxford University Press, 2013. ‘Replies to Lasersohn, Macfarlane and Richard’ (with Herman Cappelen), Philosophical Studies. Replies to Glanzbert, Soames and Weatherson’ with Herman Cappelen), Analysis Reviews. ‘Assertion and Epistemic Opacity (with Ofra Magidor), Mind 119, 1087-1105 (2010). ‘Words’ (with Ernie Lepore), Journal of Philosophy 108, 447-485 (2011). ‘How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of A Pin?’ (with Gabriel Uzquiano), Mind 120, 53-81 (2011) ‘A Metaphysician looks at the Everett Interpretation’, in Saunders, Barratt, Kent and Wallace eds, Many Worlds? Oxford University Press, 2010. (with Maria Lasonen-Aarnio),‘Knowledge and Objective Chance’, Williamson on Knowledge ed. Patrick Greeugh and Duncan Pritchard (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). ‘Superficialism in Ontology,’ Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology ed. David Chalmers, David Manley, and Ryan Wasserman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 213-30. (with Ofra Magidor),‘Assertion, Context, and Epistemic Accessibility’, Mind, 118, 2009), pp. 377-97. (with Andrew McGonigal),‘The many minds account of vagueness’, Philosophical Studies, 138 (2008), pp. 435-440. (with Jason Stanley),‘Knowledge and Action’ Journal of Philosophy, 105 (2008), 571- 590. ‘Three Dimensionalism vs Four Dimensionalism’, Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics ed. Theodore Sider, John Hawthorne, and Dean Zimmerman (Blackwell Publishing, 2008). 6 (with Elisabeth Camp), ‘Sarcastic ‘Like’: a Case Study in the Interface of Syntax and Semantics’, Philosophical Perspectives, 22, (2008), pp. 1-21. ‘Eavesdroppers and Epistemic Modals’, Philosophical Issues 17, 92-101 (2007) ‘A Priority and Externalism’ in Internalism and Externalism in Semantics and Epistemology ed. Sanford C. Goldberg (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007), pp. 201-18. ‘Cartesian Dualism’, in Persons Human and Divine ed. Peter van Inwagen and Dean Zimmerman (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007), pp. 87-98. ‘Eavesdroppers and Epistemic Modals’, Philosophical Issues, 17 (2007), pp. 92-101. ‘Craziness and Meta-Semantics’ (a reply to Williams), The Philosophical Review, 116 (2007), pp. 427-41. ‘Context-Dependency and Comparative Adjectives,’ Analysis, 67 (2007),pp. 195-204. ‘Direct Reference and Dancing Qualia’ Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge ed. Torin Alter and Sven Walter (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 195-208. (with Herman Cappelen),‘Locations and Binding,’ Analysis, 67 (2007), 95-105. ‘Religious Knowledge’ , Philosophical Exchange, 2007. ‘Testing for Context-Dependence’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73 (2006), pp. 443-50. (with Karson Kovakovich and Scott Sturgeon),‘Disjunctivism’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 106 (2006). ‘Epistemicism and Semantic Plasticity’ in Oxford Studies in Metaphysics: Vol. 2 ed. Dean W. Zimmerman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 289-322. (with Tamar Szabó Gendler),‘Perceptual Experience’ in Perceptual Experience ed. John Hawthorne and Tamar Szabó Gendler (Oxford: Oxford University
Recommended publications
  • Persistence, Vagueness, and Location

    Persistence, Vagueness, and Location

    PERSISTENCE, VAGUENESS, AND LOCATION Antony Eagle University of Adelaide, antonyeagle.org Forthcoming in The Journal of Philosophy I will discuss two arguments in favor of perdurance. The first is Sider’s argument from vagueness.1 Sider regards this argument as “one of the most powerful” in favor of perdurantism. I make the observation – obvious once made, but I am unable to find it elsewhere in the literature – that endurantists have principled grounds to claim that the argument is unsound (§§I–III). Having made this observation, I use it to emphasize a somewhat neglected difference between endurantists and perdurantists with respect to their views on material objects (§IV). These views, in the case of endurantists, lead to a further, less than conclusive but nevertheless interesting argument against endurantism – the anti-fundamentality argument – which I discuss in the second half of the paper (§§V–VI). I. THE ARGUMENT FROM VAGUENESS To begin, some terminology. An assignment is a (possibly partial) function from times to a set of entities existing at each time; a D-fusion of an assignment is an entity that is, at each time for 1 Theodore Sider, Four-Dimensionalism: an Ontology of Persistence and Time (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001), at §4.9.3. 1 which the assignment is defined, constituted by the fusion of the members of the set which is the value of the assignment at that time; a minimal D-fusion of an assignment is a D-fusion which exists only at the times for which the assignment is defined.2 In these terms, Sider’s argument aims to establish this conclusion: (U) “every assignment has a minimal D-fusion”.3 U swiftly entails the existence of temporal parts, because the singleton assignment {⟨�, �⟩} is well- formed for any � existing at �, and so has a minimal D-fusion – an entity which is the fusion of � at � and exists only at �, which meets Sider’s widely agreed criteria for being a temporal part of � at �.4 Note how important the word ‘minimal’ is in U.
  • LAWS and LAWLESSNESS Are There Laws of Nature of the Sort Discussed in Much Recent Metaphysics?

    LAWS and LAWLESSNESS Are There Laws of Nature of the Sort Discussed in Much Recent Metaphysics?

    STEPHEN MUMFORD LAWS AND LAWLESSNESS ABSTRACT. I develop a metaphysical position that is both lawless and anti-Humean. The position is called realist lawlessness and contrasts with both Humean lawlessness and nomological realism – the claim that there are laws in nature. While the Humean view also allows no laws, realist lawlessness is not Humean because it accepts some necessary connections in nature between distinct properties. Realism about laws, on the other hand, faces a central dilemma. Either laws govern the behaviour of properties from the outside or from the inside. If the former, an unacceptable quidditist view of properties follows. But no plausible account of laws within properties can be developed that permits a governing role specifically for laws. I conclude in favour of eliminativism about laws. At the conceptual core, the notion of a law in nature is misleading. It is suggestive of an otherwise static world in need of animation. 1. INTRODUCTION: PRIMITIVISM, REDUCTIONISM AND ELIMINATIVISM Are there laws of nature of the sort discussed in much recent metaphysics?1 While these discussions tend to disagree over the nature of such laws, they have in common a commitment to laws being an ineliminable part of an adequate metaphysics for our world. In this paper, I challenge that assumption. The question with which I began can be recast in ways that puts emphasis on the issue of eliminability. Do laws of nature deliver some feature to the world that would otherwise be lacking? Could a world be just like ours if it didn’t have laws? Did God have to create laws once he had created all the other things, such as particulars and universals? And so on.
  • Parts of Persons Identity and Persistence in a Perdurantist World

    Parts of Persons Identity and Persistence in a Perdurantist World

    UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI MILANO Doctoral School in Philosophy and Human Sciences (XXXI Cycle) Department of Philosophy “Piero Martinetti” Parts of Persons Identity and persistence in a perdurantist world Ph.D. Candidate Valerio BUONOMO Tutors Prof. Giuliano TORRENGO Prof. Paolo VALORE Coordinator of the Doctoral School Prof. Marcello D’AGOSTINO Academic year 2017-2018 1 Content CONTENT ........................................................................................................................... 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 1. PERSONAL IDENTITY AND PERSISTENCE...................................................................... 8 1.1. The persistence of persons and the criteria of identity over time .................................. 8 1.2. The accounts of personal persistence: a standard classification ................................... 14 1.2.1. Mentalist accounts of personal persistence ............................................................................ 15 1.2.2. Somatic accounts of personal persistence .............................................................................. 15 1.2.3. Anti-criterialist accounts of personal persistence ................................................................... 16 1.3. The metaphysics of persistence: the mereological account .........................................
  • 97 Herman Cappelen, Tamar Szabo Gendler, and John Hawthorne, Eds

    97 Herman Cappelen, Tamar Szabo Gendler, and John Hawthorne, Eds

    Philosophy in Review XXXVII (June 2017), no. 3 Herman Cappelen, Tamar Szabo Gendler, and John Hawthorne, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Methodology. Oxford University Press 2016. 688 pp. $150.00 USD (Hardcover ISBN 9780199668779). A working assumption within philosophy is that from the point of view of research, philosophers make use of a diverse set of methods. This includes, though is not limited to, argumentation, explanation, analysis, description, interpretation and so on. A further point to note is that the use of such methods may be found among practicing philosophers both today as well as within the history of philosophy, and likewise across diverse disciplines and philosophical movements from pragmatism to logical positivism, phenomenology to deconstructionism. What we find is that although philosophers may disagree on most philosophical issues, the question of whether or not philosophy simply makes use of method is hardly controversial. A further assumption that might be made is that one or another method serves best to characterize the philosophical endeavor. Here we might point to reason and argument as a primary instance of this. Since ancient times, philosophers have clearly set themselves apart from the other domains of inquiry in the use of argument, reasoned discourse and debate. The problem with such an assumption, however, is that it is far from self-evident. Although philosophy certainly makes use of argumentation, since at least the 20th century, the use of rational speculation and demonstration has tended to diminish in favor of other approaches far more critical in nature, e.g., analysis and description. A further objection may be found today in the increasing use of empirical evidence as a foundation for philosophical inquiry, so-called ‘experimental’ philosophy, which in many ways opposes traditional ‘armchair’ methods.
  • Lewis on Conventions and Meaning

    Lewis on Conventions and Meaning

    Lewis on conventions and meaning phil 93914 Jeff Speaks April 3, 2008 Lewis (1975) takes the conventions in terms of which meaning can be analyzed to be conventions of truthfulness and trust in a language. His account may be adapted to state an analysis of a sentence having a given meaning in a population as follows: x means p in a population G≡df (1a) ordinarily, if a member of G utters x, the speaker believes p, (1b) ordinarily, if a member of G hears an utterance of x, he comes to believe p, unless he already believed this, (2) members of G believe that (1a) and (1b) are true, (3) the expectation that (1a) and (1b) will continue to be true gives members of G a good reason to continue to utter x only if they believe p, and to expect the same of other members of G, (4) there is among the members of G a general preference for people to continue to conform to regularities (1a) and (1b) (5) there is an alternative regularity to (1a) and (1b) which is such that its being generally conformed to by some members of G would give other speakers reason to conform to it (6) all of these facts are mutually known by members of G Some objections: • Clause (5) should be dropped, because, as Burge (1975) argued, this clause makes Lewis's conditions on linguistic meaning too strong. Burge pointed out that (5) need not be mutually known by speakers for them to speak a meaningful language. Consider, for example, the case in which speakers believe that there is no possible language other than their own, and hence that there is no alternative regularity to (1a) and (1b).
  • Following the Argument Where It Leads

    Following the Argument Where It Leads

    Following The Argument Where It Leads Thomas Kelly Princeton University [email protected] Abstract: Throughout the history of western philosophy, the Socratic injunction to ‘follow the argument where it leads’ has exerted a powerful attraction. But what is it, exactly, to follow the argument where it leads? I explore this intellectual ideal and offer a modest proposal as to how we should understand it. On my proposal, following the argument where it leaves involves a kind of modalized reasonableness. I then consider the relationship between the ideal and common sense or 'Moorean' responses to revisionary philosophical theorizing. 1. Introduction Bertrand Russell devoted the thirteenth chapter of his History of Western Philosophy to the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. He concluded his discussion with a rather unflattering assessment: There is little of the true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better: If he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times (1945: 463). The extent to which this is a fair assessment of Aquinas is controversial.1 My purpose in what follows, however, is not to defend Aquinas; nor is it to substantiate the charges that Russell brings against him.
  • COMMENTS and CRITICISM WORDS on WORDS* Awthorne and Lepore’S Paper Begins Thus

    COMMENTS and CRITICISM WORDS on WORDS* Awthorne and Lepore’S Paper Begins Thus

    504 the journal of philosophy COMMENTS AND CRITICISM WORDS ON WORDS* awthorne and Lepore’s paper begins thus: H “ ” In his seminal paper Words, David Kaplan addresses a pair of questions that have been largely neglected by the philosophical community: (i) Under what conditions are two utterances utterances of the same word? (ii) What are words? That these questions have not received much attention is rather surpris- ing: after all, philosophers and linguists frequently appeal to consider- ations about word and sentence identity in connection with a variety of puzzles and problems that are foundational to the very subject matter of philosophy of language and linguistics. Kaplan’s attention to words is thus to be applauded. And there is no doubt that his discussion contains many useful insights.1 [Emphasis missing in the original.] As we say in the Passover service, Dayenu. That alone would have been sufficient. Unfortunately, as I have discovered to my sorrow, papers that begin like this always continue, at length, in a different vein. In fact, the very next word in their introduction is “Nevertheless.” I will respond to some of their criticisms, but I want to say at the outset that in my view, when you publish something, you put it out there for all eyes to see from their own perspective. And so, I believe * This article is an attempt to reconstruct a paper delivered to a symposium at the American Philosophical Association meeting in San Francisco on April 3, 2010. It spe- cifically aims to do no more than that. In order to avoid an endless back and forth, we all agreed to publish what was presented, rather than second thoughts based on what the others had presented.
  • Naturalness, Intrinsicality, and Duplication

    Naturalness, Intrinsicality, and Duplication

    Naturalness, Intrinsicality, and Duplication Theodore Sider Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts. Committee: Phillip Bricker (chair), Fred Feldman, Edmund Gettier, Angelika Kratzer May 1993 Acknowledgments I would like to thank various people for their verbal and written comments on earlier stages of this dissertation. Of course, none of these people are re- sponsible for the views I express. I am indebted to Mark Aronszajn, Lynne Baker, David Braun, Earl Conee, David Cowles, Max Cresswell, David Den- by, Fred Feldman, Richard Feldman, Edmund Gettier, Larry Holm, Ned Markosian, Deborah Modrak, and R. Cranston Paull. I am especially indebted to my dissertation director, Phillip Bricker. He consistently gave me excellent comments and helped me to see more mistakes than I care to remember. For whatever there is of value in this dissertation, he deserves much of the credit. i Abstract This dissertation explores the concepts of naturalness, intrinsicality, and du- plication. An intrinsic property is had by an object purely in virtue of the way that object is considered in itself. Duplicate objects are exactly similar, considered as they are in themselves. The perfectly natural properties are the most fundamental properties of the world, upon which the nature of the world depends. In this dissertation I develop a theory of intrinsicality, naturalness, and duplication and explore their philosophical applications. Chapter 1 intro- duces the notions, gives a preliminary survey of some proposed conceptual connections between the notions, and sketches some of their proposed ap- plications. Chapter 2 gives my background assumptions and introduces no- tational conventions. In chapter 3 I present a theory of naturalness.
  • Philosophy 539/Theory of Knowledge: Evidence

    Philosophy 539/Theory of Knowledge: Evidence

    Philosophy 539/Theory of Knowledge: Evidence Princeton University Spring 2008 Wednesdays 1:30-4:20, Marx 201 An examination of select issues at the intersection of philosophy of science and epistemology, with a focus on the theme of ‘evidence’. Recent work on the concept of evidence, with some attention to both informal and formal approaches. Williamson’s conception of evidence as knowledge. Evidence and epistemic diversity. How should we think of evidence which bears on philosophical theories? (Is there some distinctive kind of ‘philosophical’ evidence, e.g., ‘intuitions’, or is such evidence ultimately of a piece with scientific evidence?) In what respects (if any) does common sense provide a kind of data for philosophy? The role of normative ideals for believers who have evidence of their own finitude and fallibility. Bas van Fraassen Thomas Kelly 219 1879 Hall 221 1879 Hall [email protected] [email protected] Office hrs: Th.12:30-1:20 + by appt. Office hrs: F 12-12:50 + by appt. 1. February 6th. Introduction/Overview 2. February 13th. Evidence: What Is It? Williamson on evidence *Timothy Williamson, “Evidence”, Chapter 9 of his Knowledge and Its Limits (Oxford University Press 2000), pp.184-208. Thomas Kelly, “Evidence”, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available online at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/. 3. February 20th. Evidence and Epistemic Diversity (I). *Roger White, “Epistemic Permissiveness” in John Hawthorne (ed.) Philosophical Perspectives, vol.19: Epistemology (Blackwell 2005), pp.445-459. Bas’ voluntarist response. 2 4. February 27th. Evidence and Epistemic Diversity (II). *Thomas Kelly, “Peer Disagreement and Higher Order Evidence” forthcoming in Richard Feldman and Ted Warfield (eds.) Disagreement (Oxford University Press 2008).
  • Herman Cappelen

    Herman Cappelen

    CSMN & IFIKK GEORG MORGENSTIERNES HUS HERMAN UNIVERSITY OF OSLO [email protected] CAPPELEN PRIMARY POSITIONS CHAIR PROFESSORSHIP, PHILOSOPHY 2020- University of Hong Kong PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY 2015-2020 University of Oslo PROFESSOR AND ARCHÉ CHAIR 2007 – 2015 University of St Andrews CUF LECTURER, FELLOW AND TUTOR IN PHILOSOPHY 2006-2007 Somerville College and University of Oxford ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY 2003 – 2005 Vassar College, New York ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY 1996 – 2003 Vassar College, New York LONG-TERM AFFILIATED POSITIONS PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY (0.2 TIME) 2015-2020 University of St Andrews RESEARCH DIRECTOR, CSMN AT OSLO 2007 – 2017 University of Oslo 1 QUALIFICATIONS PhD In Philosophy. 1996 University of California, Berkeley Dissertation: “The Metaphysics of Words and the Semantics of Quotation”. Advisors: C. Chihara, S. Neale, and J. Searle BA in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. 1989 Balliol College, Oxford MAJOR RESEARCH GRANTS • ConsciousBrainConcepts – 16 million NOK (PI: J. Storm, with collaborators from medicine, philosophy and psychology) (2019- 2022) • Toppforsk for Conceptual Engineering, 25 million NOK (with Øystein Linnebo and Camilla Serck-Hanssen and Rachel Sterken). (2016-21) • CSMN, Phase II: approximately 60 million NOK over 5 years from the Norwegian Research Council (with 7 other applicants). • Rethinking Mind and Meaning: £250,000 from AHRC (PI: Juan Gomez).(2014-16) • Intuitions and Philosophical Methodology: £990.000 from AHRC (PI: Jessica Brown) (2008-12) • Contextualism and Relativism: £990.000, from AHRC (PI: Crispin Wright).(2007-10) • CSMN Phase I: approximately 60 million (NOK) over 5 years from the Norwegian Research Council (with 7 other applicants).( 2007-12) • Shared Content: Awarded 4.5 million (NOK), from The Norwegian Research Council.
  • Academic CV Vero

    Academic CV Vero

    Giacomo Giannini Department of Philosophy, Durham University, 50 Old Elvet, DH1 3HN, United Kingdom [email protected], [email protected] Areas of Specialisation: Metaphysics. Areas of Competence: Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Logic and Language, Modern Philsosophy. EDUCATION PhD 2016-2020 Durham University Title of Dissertation: ‘Powers for Dispositionalism: A Metaphysical Ground for New Actualism’. Supervisors: Matthew Tugby, Stephen Mumford, and Anna Marmodoro. Viva passed with Minor Corrections. Examiners: Barbara Vetter (FU Berlin), Robin Hendry (Durham). MA Philosophy (Distinction) 2016 Università di Bologna. Title of Dissertation: ‘Truthmakers for Modal Claims’. Supervisors: Walter Cavini and Fabrice Correia (Université de Neuchâtel). BA Philosophy (Distinction) 2014 Università di Bologna Supervisor: Eva Picardi. PUBLICATIONS 2020 “Actualism minus Naturalism Equals Platonism?” co-authored with Matthew Tugby, Philosophical In- quiries, S.I. on Barbara Vetter’s Potentiality (OUP, 2015), 2020. Forthcoming “Formal Causes for Powers” co-authored with Stephen Mumford, to appear in Sandstad & Jansen (eds.) Neo-Aristotelian Perspectives on Formal Causation, Routledge, 2020. Under Review “Powers, Processes, and Eternalism” (R&R, Erkenntnis) “New Powers for Dispositionalism” (R&R, Synthese) Work in Progress “Universals Cannot Be Manifestations of Powers” 1 “The Source of Independence and the Source of Necessity” “Can There Be a Fundamental Level in a Powerful World?” SCHOLARSHIPS AND AWARDS 2019 Royal Institute of Philosophy Bursary. 2019 Durham Excellence in Learning and Teaching Award. 2016 ARHC - Northern Bridge Doctoral Training Partnership Doctoral Scholarship. 2015 University Award for Academic Excellence (Borsa di studio per merito) for the year 2013/14. 2014 University Award for Academic Excellence (Borsa di studio per merito) for the year 2012/13.
  • Belief in Psyontology Cumstances (Ross & Schroeder, 2014; Schwitzgebel, 2015)

    Belief in Psyontology Cumstances (Ross & Schroeder, 2014; Schwitzgebel, 2015)

    Philosophers’ volume 20, no. 11 ow are full and partial belief related in psychology’s ontology? Imprint april 2020 H Credence-first philosophers think partial belief is more funda- mental. For example, Lockeans say that to believe P is just to have high credence in P. Whereas categorical-first philosophers make full beliefs fundamental instead. Having credence x in P might just amount to having a categorical belief that P’s probability is x, for example. Work in cognitive psychology supports a different view, however. In humans, beliefs come in both coarse and fine kinds, with neither BELIEF IN more fundamental than the other. Epistemologists who focus on one kind to the exclusion of the other, or who treat one as central and the other as an afterthought, risk toiling at a fiction. This conclusion is necessarily tentative. For one thing, the empir- PSYONTOLOGY ical work is nascent and ongoing, its results subject to revision. But more than that, it’s sometimes unclear what the present results tell us about the ontological and epistemological questions of interest to philosophers. Still, a prima facie case can be made. And making it is an essential step in bringing our best science to bear on what is, at least in part, an empirical question. 1. Background Jonathan Weisberg 1.1 Why Monism? Why think one kind of belief is more fundamental than the other? It’s not just that Anglophone philosophers use ‘belief’ for both kinds, so University of Toronto they must really be the same thing deep down.1 It’s rather what causes us to use ‘belief’ for both attitudes.