Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:

Displaying: 1-3 of 3 documents

1. The Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 113 > Issue: 4
Jared Warren Internal and External Questions Revisited
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Rudolf Carnap famously distinguished between the external meanings that existence questions have when asked by philosophers and the internal meanings they have when asked by non-philosophers. Carnap’s overall position involved various controversial commitments, but relatively uncontroversial interpretative principles also lead to a Carnap-style distinction between internal and external questions. In section 1 of this paper I offer arguments for such a distinction in several particular cases; in section 2 I defend my arguments from numerous objections and motivate them by using points drawn from the general theory of interpretation; and in section 3 I discuss the meanings of external questions, ultimately arguing that they are best understood as involving primitive metaphysical notions, and that when so understood, it is natural to adopt a general error theory about philosophical ontology.
2. The Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 113 > Issue: 4
Yael Loewenstein Why the Direct Argument Does Not Shift the Burden of Proof
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Peter van Inwagen's Direct Argument (DA) makes use of an inference rule he calls "Rule B." Michael McKenna has argued that van Inwagen's defense of this rule is dialectically inappropriate because it is based entirely on alleged “confirming” cases that are not of the right kind to justify the use of Rule B in DA. Here I argue that McKenna’s objection is on the right track but more must be said if we are to see why. To fill in the gaps I consider a recent attempt by Ira M. Schnall and David Widerker to defend DA against McKenna’s objection. I argue that neither prong of their attack is successful against a variation on McKenna’s basic argument. In the course of responding to Schnall and Widerker’s objections to McKenna, I identify what is, as I argue, the real reason DA fails in its purpose to shift the burden of proof.
review essays
3. The Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 113 > Issue: 4
James M. Joyce Arif Ahmed: Evidence, Decision and Causality
view |  rights & permissions | cited by