哲学家的认识义务:附录。

IF 1.1 4区哲学 Q3 ETHICS

Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1353/ken.2021.0023

Philippe van Basshuysen, Lucie White

{"title":"哲学家的认识义务:附录。","authors":"Philippe van Basshuysen, Lucie White","doi":"10.1353/ken.2021.0023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In \"Were Lockdowns Justified? A Return to the Facts and Evidence\", we argue that Eric Winsberg, Jason Brennan and Chris Surprenant fail to make their case that initial COVID-19 lockdowns were unjustified, due to the fact their argument rests on erroneous factual claims. As is made clear by a response in this volume, the authors mistakenly take us to have been defending the imposition of lockdowns. Here, we clarify the aims of our original paper, and emphasise the importance of getting the facts right when making philosophical arguments in such a contentious domain.","PeriodicalId":46167,"journal":{"name":"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal","volume":"31 4","pages":"447-451"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Epistemic Duties of Philosophers: An Addendum.\",\"authors\":\"Philippe van Basshuysen, Lucie White\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/ken.2021.0023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In \\\"Were Lockdowns Justified? A Return to the Facts and Evidence\\\", we argue that Eric Winsberg, Jason Brennan and Chris Surprenant fail to make their case that initial COVID-19 lockdowns were unjustified, due to the fact their argument rests on erroneous factual claims. As is made clear by a response in this volume, the authors mistakenly take us to have been defending the imposition of lockdowns. Here, we clarify the aims of our original paper, and emphasise the importance of getting the facts right when making philosophical arguments in such a contentious domain.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46167,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal\",\"volume\":\"31 4\",\"pages\":\"447-451\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2021.0023\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2021.0023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

摘要

在《封锁合理吗?》在《回归事实和证据》一书中，我们认为，埃里克·温斯伯格、杰森·布伦南和克里斯·苏普伦特未能证明最初的COVID-19封锁是不合理的，因为他们的论点建立在错误的事实主张之上。正如本卷中的一篇回应所表明的那样，作者错误地认为我们一直在为实施封锁辩护。在这里，我们澄清了原始论文的目的，并强调在这样一个有争议的领域进行哲学论证时，获得正确事实的重要性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

The Epistemic Duties of Philosophers: An Addendum.

In "Were Lockdowns Justified? A Return to the Facts and Evidence", we argue that Eric Winsberg, Jason Brennan and Chris Surprenant fail to make their case that initial COVID-19 lockdowns were unjustified, due to the fact their argument rests on erroneous factual claims. As is made clear by a response in this volume, the authors mistakenly take us to have been defending the imposition of lockdowns. Here, we clarify the aims of our original paper, and emphasise the importance of getting the facts right when making philosophical arguments in such a contentious domain.

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

Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal Multiple-

CiteScore

3.00

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal offers a scholarly forum for diverse views on major issues in bioethics, such as analysis and critique of principlism, feminist perspectives in bioethics, the work of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, active euthanasia, genetics, health care reform, and organ transplantation. Each issue includes "Scope Notes," an overview and extensive annotated bibliography on a specific topic in bioethics, and "Bioethics Inside the Beltway," a report written by a Washington insider updating bioethics activities on the federal level.