偏见、规范与功能:评托马斯·凯利的《偏见:哲学研究》

IF 1.1 1区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Gabbrielle M. Johnson
{"title":"偏见、规范与功能:评托马斯·凯利的《偏见:哲学研究》","authors":"Gabbrielle M. Johnson","doi":"10.1007/s11098-025-02288-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This commentary on Thomas Kelly’s <i>Bias: A Philosophical Study</i> compares his Norm-Theoretic Account, which defines <i>bias</i> as involving systematic deviations from genuine norms, with the Functional Account of Bias, which instead conceptualizes <i>bias</i> as a functional response to the problem of underdetermination. While both accounts offer valuable insights, I explore their compatibility and differences, arguing that the Functional Account provides a more comprehensive understanding of bias by offering deeper explanatory insights, particularly regarding bias’s origins and purpose.</p>","PeriodicalId":48305,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bias, Norms, and Function: comments on Thomas Kelly’s Bias: a Philosophical Study\",\"authors\":\"Gabbrielle M. Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11098-025-02288-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This commentary on Thomas Kelly’s <i>Bias: A Philosophical Study</i> compares his Norm-Theoretic Account, which defines <i>bias</i> as involving systematic deviations from genuine norms, with the Functional Account of Bias, which instead conceptualizes <i>bias</i> as a functional response to the problem of underdetermination. While both accounts offer valuable insights, I explore their compatibility and differences, arguing that the Functional Account provides a more comprehensive understanding of bias by offering deeper explanatory insights, particularly regarding bias’s origins and purpose.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48305,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-025-02288-x\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-025-02288-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇对托马斯·凯利的《偏见:哲学研究》的评论比较了他的规范理论解释和偏见的功能解释,前者将偏见定义为涉及对真正规范的系统性偏离,后者将偏见概念化为对不确定性问题的功能性反应。虽然两种说法都提供了有价值的见解,但我探讨了它们的兼容性和差异,认为功能说通过提供更深入的解释性见解,特别是关于偏见的起源和目的,提供了对偏见的更全面的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bias, Norms, and Function: comments on Thomas Kelly’s Bias: a Philosophical Study

This commentary on Thomas Kelly’s Bias: A Philosophical Study compares his Norm-Theoretic Account, which defines bias as involving systematic deviations from genuine norms, with the Functional Account of Bias, which instead conceptualizes bias as a functional response to the problem of underdetermination. While both accounts offer valuable insights, I explore their compatibility and differences, arguing that the Functional Account provides a more comprehensive understanding of bias by offering deeper explanatory insights, particularly regarding bias’s origins and purpose.

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
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
127
期刊介绍: Philosophical Studies was founded in 1950 by Herbert Feigl and Wilfrid Sellars to provide a periodical dedicated to work in analytic philosophy. The journal remains devoted to the publication of papers in exclusively analytic philosophy. Papers applying formal techniques to philosophical problems are welcome. The principal aim is to publish articles that are models of clarity and precision in dealing with significant philosophical issues. It is intended that readers of the journal will be kept abreast of the central issues and problems of contemporary analytic philosophy. Double-blind review procedure The journal follows a double-blind reviewing procedure. Authors are therefore requested to place their name and affiliation on a separate page. Self-identifying citations and references in the article text should either be avoided or left blank when manuscripts are first submitted. Authors are responsible for reinserting self-identifying citations and references when manuscripts are prepared for final submission.
×
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