{"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}
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.