评价赖特和努南反对怀疑主义的外在主义论点

H. Alaeinejad
{"title":"评价赖特和努南反对怀疑主义的外在主义论点","authors":"H. Alaeinejad","doi":"10.58209/jpt.2.2.105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"not a brain in a vat, but without the use of any auxiliary premises, they can not prove that we are not brains in a vat; (2) Contrary to Wright’s claim, this premise of his argument that In BIVese, “brain-in-a-vat” does not refer to brains-in-a-vat, and its result, that is, that my language is not BIVese, lead his argument to be epistemically circular; and (3) Noonan’s attempt to avoid epistemic circularity has not led to the desired result, and his argument, like Wright’s, is epistemically circular.","PeriodicalId":219243,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Thought","volume":"92 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Wright and Noonan's Externalist Arguments against Skepticism\",\"authors\":\"H. Alaeinejad\",\"doi\":\"10.58209/jpt.2.2.105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"not a brain in a vat, but without the use of any auxiliary premises, they can not prove that we are not brains in a vat; (2) Contrary to Wright’s claim, this premise of his argument that In BIVese, “brain-in-a-vat” does not refer to brains-in-a-vat, and its result, that is, that my language is not BIVese, lead his argument to be epistemically circular; and (3) Noonan’s attempt to avoid epistemic circularity has not led to the desired result, and his argument, like Wright’s, is epistemically circular.\",\"PeriodicalId\":219243,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophical Thought\",\"volume\":\"92 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophical Thought\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.58209/jpt.2.2.105\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Thought","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58209/jpt.2.2.105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

不是缸里的大脑,但如果不使用任何辅助前提,他们就不能证明我们不是缸里的大脑;(2)与赖特的主张相反,他的论点的前提,即在BIVese中,“脑缸”不是指脑缸,其结果,即我的语言不是BIVese,导致他的论点在认识论上是循环的;(3)努南试图避免认识循环并没有导致预期的结果,他的论点,像赖特的一样,是认识循环的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating Wright and Noonan's Externalist Arguments against Skepticism
not a brain in a vat, but without the use of any auxiliary premises, they can not prove that we are not brains in a vat; (2) Contrary to Wright’s claim, this premise of his argument that In BIVese, “brain-in-a-vat” does not refer to brains-in-a-vat, and its result, that is, that my language is not BIVese, lead his argument to be epistemically circular; and (3) Noonan’s attempt to avoid epistemic circularity has not led to the desired result, and his argument, like Wright’s, is epistemically circular.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信