唯一性和逻辑分歧

Q2 Arts and Humanities

Logos and Episteme Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.5840/logos-episteme20201111

Frederik J. Andersen

{"title":"唯一性和逻辑分歧","authors":"Frederik J. Andersen","doi":"10.5840/logos-episteme20201111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses the uniqueness thesis, a core thesis in the epistemology of disagreement. After presenting uniqueness and clarifying relevant terms, a novel counterexample to the thesis will be introduced. This counterexample involves logical disagreement. Several objections to the counterexample are then considered, and it is argued that the best responses to the counterexample all undermine the initial motivation for uniqueness.","PeriodicalId":37720,"journal":{"name":"Logos and Episteme","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Uniqueness and Logical Disagreement\",\"authors\":\"Frederik J. Andersen\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/logos-episteme20201111\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper discusses the uniqueness thesis, a core thesis in the epistemology of disagreement. After presenting uniqueness and clarifying relevant terms, a novel counterexample to the thesis will be introduced. This counterexample involves logical disagreement. Several objections to the counterexample are then considered, and it is argued that the best responses to the counterexample all undermine the initial motivation for uniqueness.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37720,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Logos and Episteme\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Logos and Episteme\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/logos-episteme20201111\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Logos and Episteme","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/logos-episteme20201111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

摘要

本文讨论了分歧认识论的核心论题——唯一性命题。在提出独特性和澄清相关术语之后，本文将引入一个新的反例。这个反例涉及逻辑上的分歧。然后考虑对反例的几种反对意见，并认为对反例的最佳回应都破坏了独特性的初始动机。

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

Uniqueness and Logical Disagreement

This paper discusses the uniqueness thesis, a core thesis in the epistemology of disagreement. After presenting uniqueness and clarifying relevant terms, a novel counterexample to the thesis will be introduced. This counterexample involves logical disagreement. Several objections to the counterexample are then considered, and it is argued that the best responses to the counterexample all undermine the initial motivation for uniqueness.

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

Logos and Episteme Arts and Humanities-Philosophy

CiteScore

0.40

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

20 weeks

期刊介绍： the journal publishes articles, reviews or discussion notes focused as well on problems concerning the general theory of knowledge, as on problems specific to the philosophy, methodology and ethics of science, philosophical logic, metaphilosophy, moral epistemology, epistemology of art, epistemology of religion, social or political epistemology, epistemology of communication. Studies in the history of science and of the philosophy of knowledge, or studies in the sociology of knowledge, cognitive psychology, and cognitive science are also welcome.