{"title":"Public reason, Kant, and kantians: comments on Lu-Adler’s Kant on public reason and the linguistic other","authors":"Yuan Yuan","doi":"10.1007/s44204-024-00211-5","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-024-00211-5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-024-00211-5.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142579528","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Comments on appearance and explanation","authors":"Richard Fumerton","doi":"10.1007/s44204-024-00207-1","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-024-00207-1","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>So as I understand it, the fundamental goal of Kevin McCain and Luca Moretti’s <i>Appearance and Explanation</i> is to offer a <i>unified</i> account of epistemic justification, one that incorporates insights of both phenomenal conservatism and explanationism. One might suppose that one gets the best of both views by employing the phenomenal conservative’s views about the role of appearance in order to get the <i>initial</i> data that needs explaining, while one appeals to explanationism to <i>expand</i> one’s justified beliefs beyond the data provided by appearance. But if I understand the authors, their view may be more complicated than this. While McCain and Moretti defend many views with which I agree in <i>Appearance and Explanation</i>, I’ll focus here on questions and objections. The first concerns the role of appearance in giving one an <i>explanandum</i>. The second concerns the role of appearance in reaching justified beliefs about whether a proposed explanation is better than alternatives.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142518599","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Causal inference and inter-world laws","authors":"Tung-Ying Wu","doi":"10.1007/s44204-024-00206-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-024-00206-2","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Jun Otsuka, in his recent work <i>Thinking About Statistics</i> (2023), undertakes a philosophical investigation of fundamental statistical methodologies, with a particular emphasis on causal inference. In his ontological analysis of causal inference, Otsuka posits that causal analysis, within a given causal model, requires the modification of the underlying probabilistic distribution. This modification, he argues, effectively constitutes a transition between possible worlds. Consequently, Otsuka identifies the objective of causal inference as the discovery of inter-world laws that govern the relationships between these distinct probabilistic models (Otsuka 2023, p.168). Granting Otsuka’s ontological commitments regarding causal and probabilistic models, his interpretation of certain causal analyses as inherently inter-worldly is indeed compelling. This perspective merits particular attention given the prevailing tendency to view such analyses to mere rules for estimating causal effects. While this review does not directly challenge Otsuka’s position, it aims to further explore and contribute to this stimulating concept.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142451013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Phenomenal explanationism and non-inferential justification","authors":"Tommaso Piazza","doi":"10.1007/s44204-024-00204-4","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-024-00204-4","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In this note, I argue that McCain and Moretti’s account of non-inferential justification is subject to the subjective point of view objection, and that for this reason, it does not provide an internalistically acceptable alternative to the account of this justification supplied by Huemer’s Phenomenal Conservatism (PC). Moreover, I contend that PC’s account is not afflicted by the same problem and that it does not generate the over-intellectualization and regress problem. Finally, contra McCain and Moretti, I argue that the non-inferential justification described by PC does not engender a form of vicious epistemic circularity, and so that it does not raise the reflective awareness problem.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-024-00204-4.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142411220","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Separating McDowell’s two Myths of the Given - or on how to best explain the conceptuality of the space of reasons","authors":"Johan Gersel","doi":"10.1007/s44204-024-00203-5","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-024-00203-5","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In his book, <i>John McDowell on Worldly Subjectivity</i>, Tony Cheng argues that recent changes to McDowell’s theory of perceptual justification should lead him to accept that experiences possess non-conceptual content. In this paper, I take issue with Cheng’s conclusion. Instead, I argue that McDowell should adopt Travis’s position, where experiences aren’t taken to possess content at all. I argue that we can distinguish two separate Myths of the Given in McDowell’s writings. While McDowell often seamlessly moves from one to the other, I argue that it is difficult to see how he can justify this due to his recent alterations to his position. I argue that if we reject one Myth and retain the other, then McDowell can both hold on to a version of his view that the space of reasons is the space of the conceptual, all the while he accepts Travis’s arguments to the effect that experiences are devoid of content. Finally, I consider some arguments McDowell might present against accepting Travis’s position. While these objections do not convince me, what is notable about them is that, if they are sound, then they will equally count against Cheng’s intermediary position where non-conceptual contents are ascribed to experiences. Hence, I conclude that there are no grounds on which McDowell can reasonably endorse that experiences possess non-conceptual contents. Either he should stick to his conceptualism, or he should follow Travis and reject that experiences possess contents at all.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-024-00203-5.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142410897","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Evidential pluralism in the social sciences: What can be established in case study research?","authors":"Rosa W. Runhardt","doi":"10.1007/s44204-024-00199-y","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-024-00199-y","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This article responds to Yafeng Shan and Jon Williamson’s 2022 volume Evidential <i>Pluralism in the Social Sciences</i>, focusing on the applicability of Evidential Pluralism in the field of case study research through the use of examples from political science. The article argues that Shan and Williamson’s guidance on (a) what evidence one needs to establish causation in singular case studies and (b) what one may conclude at the population level once one has done so is lacking in some important respects. Therefore, this article will speak to the wider community of social scientists and methodologists who are sympathetic to using a plurality of evidence in case study research, but who still want guidance of how to do so in a philosophically grounded manner.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-024-00199-y.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142410791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Problems for phenomenal explanationism","authors":"Matthias Steup","doi":"10.1007/s44204-024-00202-6","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-024-00202-6","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>I raise several problems for Phenomenal Explanationism, which McCain and Moretti intend to be a fusion of Evidentialism and Phenomenal Conservatism. I argue that the view is actually a non-conservative, credentialist view. Unlike conservatism, it does not allow for immediate justification. I also argue that the view has trouble accounting for justification coming from background knowledge. Finally, I argue that the view runs into the problem of equally good explanations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142410792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Laozian metaethics","authors":"Jason Dockstader","doi":"10.1007/s44204-024-00198-z","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-024-00198-z","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper contributes to the emerging field of comparative metaethics by offering a reconstruction of the metaethical views implicit to the Daoist classic, the <i>Laozi</i> 老子 or <i>Daodejing</i> 道德經. It offers two novel views developed out of the <i>Laozi</i>: one-all value monism and moral trivialism. The paper proceeds by discussing Brook Ziporyn’s reading of the <i>Laozi</i> in terms of omnipresence and irony, and then applies his reading to moral properties like values and names (<i>ming</i> 名). The paper emboldens Ziporyn’s monistic tendencies in order to claim that the <i>Laozi</i> not only treats the Dao as an omnipresent value, but also as the one value that <i>is</i> all values. I call this view one-all value monism. I then argue that, in terms of moral epistemology, one-all value monism entails moral trivialism, the view that all moral judgments are true. I conclude by emphasizing the therapeutic motivation for holding such apparently outrageous metaethical views. The paper thus defends the basic claim that there is a point at which Ziporyn’s omnipresence and irony become monism and true contradiction, and that further exploring the consequences of these inevitable transitions leads to the discovery of novel metaethical views.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142410450","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"What are collective epistemic reasons and why do we need them?","authors":"Anne Schwenkenbecher","doi":"10.1007/s44204-024-00197-0","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-024-00197-0","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-024-00197-0.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142410105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Kant, the scholarship condition, and linguistic racialization: comments on Lu-Adler’s Kant on Public Reason and the Linguistic Other","authors":"J. Colin McQuillan","doi":"10.1007/s44204-024-00200-8","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-024-00200-8","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In this response to Lu-Adler’s “Kant on Public Reason and the Linguistic Other,” I summarize the restrictions the scholarship condition imposes on the public use of reason in Kant’s essay “What is Enlightenment?” I then agree that Lu-Adler identifies an even more radical set of restrictions on the public use of reason, confirming that Kant is not the liberal egalitarian he is often supposed to be by intellectual historians, historians of philosophy, and Kant scholars. After that, I suggest that what Lu-Adler calls “the construction of a linguistic other” in Kant’s lectures on logic and anthropology can also be understood as “Kantian linguistic racialization.” I close with a short reflection on how we should respond to Kant’s illiberal, inegalitarian, linguistic racism.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142409600","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}