错误理论与思想

C. Cowie
{"title":"错误理论与思想","authors":"C. Cowie","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198842736.003.0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It has been argued that the epistemic error theory is incompatible with the ‘essentially normative’ nature of belief itself. Two versions of this objection to the epistemic error theory are presented. Neither is found to be plausible. The most plausible is based on the view that the concept of belief is essentially normative. It is claimed that this view is under-motivated and would, in any case, be unlikely to cause the problems for epistemic error theorists that it is sometimes claimed to. Some alternative objections to the epistemic error theory based on the nature of thought and deliberation are briefly considered.","PeriodicalId":256838,"journal":{"name":"Morality and Epistemic Judgement","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Error Theory and Thought\",\"authors\":\"C. Cowie\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198842736.003.0009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It has been argued that the epistemic error theory is incompatible with the ‘essentially normative’ nature of belief itself. Two versions of this objection to the epistemic error theory are presented. Neither is found to be plausible. The most plausible is based on the view that the concept of belief is essentially normative. It is claimed that this view is under-motivated and would, in any case, be unlikely to cause the problems for epistemic error theorists that it is sometimes claimed to. Some alternative objections to the epistemic error theory based on the nature of thought and deliberation are briefly considered.\",\"PeriodicalId\":256838,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Morality and Epistemic Judgement\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Morality and Epistemic Judgement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198842736.003.0009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Morality and Epistemic Judgement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198842736.003.0009","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

有人认为,认识错误理论与信仰本身的“本质规范”本质是不相容的。这个反对认识论错误理论的两个版本被提出。这两种说法都不可信。最似是而非的是基于信念概念本质上是规范性的这一观点。有人声称,这种观点是缺乏动机的,在任何情况下,都不太可能给认识论错误理论家带来有时声称的问题。对基于思维和审议的性质的认识论错误理论的一些反对意见进行了简要的考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Error Theory and Thought
It has been argued that the epistemic error theory is incompatible with the ‘essentially normative’ nature of belief itself. Two versions of this objection to the epistemic error theory are presented. Neither is found to be plausible. The most plausible is based on the view that the concept of belief is essentially normative. It is claimed that this view is under-motivated and would, in any case, be unlikely to cause the problems for epistemic error theorists that it is sometimes claimed to. Some alternative objections to the epistemic error theory based on the nature of thought and deliberation are briefly considered.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信