It is widely accepted that one of the most crucial issues in philosophy of education is related to the concept of value. The contemporary debates on the concept of value and the power of education to deal with value conflicts revolve around two basic questions. First: How can I live personally flourishing life with a responsibility for the universe in general and others in particular? Second: In what ways can education help us find a common ground between living well and being morally good? It is argued in this piece of work that education of emotions can be reconsidered as a promising remedy for this dilemma. A Deweyian account of desirable habit formation is elaborated, endorsed and defended, yet possible objections to the account is taken into consideration.Eğitim felsefesinin en merkezi sorunlarından birinin değer kavramıyla ilişkili olduğu büyük ölçüde kabul görür. Hem değer kavramı, hem de eğitimin değer çatışmalarının çözümünde ne ölçüde etkili olabileceğine ilişkin çağdaş tartışmaların iki temel soru çevresinde dolaştığı görülmektedir. Birincisi: Genel olarak evrensel çevre ve özellikle de insani çevreye karşı sorumlu, ama aynı zamanda kişisel açıdan mutlu bir yaşam sürmek nasıl olanaklı olur? İkincisi. Bu çerçevede, eğitim, iyi yaşamak ile iyi biri olmak arasında bir uzlaşım geliştirmemize hangi biçimlerde yardımcı olabilir? Bu çalışmada duyguların eğitimi olarak özetlenen yaklaşımın sözü edilen sorunsalı aşmak açısından ümit verici olduğu savunulacaktır. Bu amaçla, Deweyci bir ‘yeğlenebilir alışkanlık biçimlendirme’ yaklaşımının ayrıntılandırılması ve savunusu yapılmakta, ayrıca bu yaklaşıma yöneltilebilecek itirazlar da gözden geçirilmektedir.

According to what is known as Stalnaker’s hypothesis, the probability of a conditional statement is equal to the conditional probability of the statement’s consequent given the statement’s antecedent. Starting with David Lewis, many have attempted to show that this hypothesis cannot be true for non-trivial probability functions. These attempts, which are known as the triviality results, cannot refute the hypothesis conclusively, because the triviality results usually rest on controversial assumptions such as the closure of conditionalization. In addition to the triviality results, there is one often cited argument against Stalnaker’s hypothesis that does not seem to rest on a controversial assumption. The argument is Alan Hájek’s 1989 reductio argument, which purportedly shows that Stalnaker’s hypothesis leads to outright contradiction. In this paper, I critically evaluate Hajek’s reductio argument and show that it is not a valid argument. His argument is simply an instance of the petitio principii fallacy. On the positive side, I argue that my critical evaluation of Hajek’s argument brings us one step closer to the reconciliation of the analytical and empirical examinations of Stalnaker’s hypothesis.Literatürde Stalnaker hipotezi olarak bilinen iddiaya göre, bir şartlı önermenin olasılığı, o önermenin art bileşenin ön bileşeninine şartlı olasılığına eşittir. David Lewis’in 1976 tarihli makalesinden beri birçok felsefeci bu iddianın sadece basit ve sıradan (trivial) olasılık fonksiyonları için geçerli olduğu, diğer daha işlevli (non-trivial) olasılık fonksiyonlarına uygulanamayacağını göstermeye çalışmışlar ve bu hedef doğrultusunda birçok ispat sunmuşlardır. Ancak sıradanlık sonuçları (triviality results) olarak bilinen bu tür ispatların Stalnaker hipotezini tam olarak reddetmeye yeterli olmadığı anlaşılmıştır. Çünkü bu ispatların büyük bir çoğunluğu koşullamanın kapalılığı (closure of conditionalization) gibi tartışmalı olan varsayımlara dayanmaktadır. Literatürde tartışmalı herhangi bir varsayıma dayalı olmadığı iddia edilen ve sıklıkla gönderme yapılan bir başka argüman daha mevcuttur. Alan Hájek’in 1989 tarihli makalesinde olmayana ergi metodu ile geliştirdiği bu argüman, herhangi tartışmalı bir varsayıma dayanmadan, Stalnaker hipotezinin doğrudan çelişkiye neden olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu makalede Hájek’in argümanının geçerliliği detaylı olarak incelenmekte ve sonuçta söz konusu argümanın petitio principii çıkarsama hatasını barındırdığı ve bu sebeple de geçerli olmadığı tespit edilmektedir. Pozitif katkı olarak ise bu varılan tespitin Stalnaker hipotezinin analitik ve ampirik değerlendirmeleri arasında var olan uyuşmazlığın giderilmesinde bir adım daha ileri gitmemizi sağladığı iddia edilmektidir.

Various approaches have been made for understanding the nature of science and scientific knowledge. The social factors that played some role during the choice of scientific theories (like the theory of evolution) in the nineteenth century popularised the opinion that the scientific knowledge is the subject of a sociological research. During the ongoing discussions, one of the explanation or the justification models that was proposed is known as “the Strong Programme.” The main claim of “the Strong Programme” is that the social factors have a determining role for the choice of scientific theories, rather than the rational and universal criteria one may expect. Hence, those who were behind this view rejected all of the rational analyses made for the sciences and the scientific methods. In this paper, we try to investigate the validity of the claims of “the Strong Programme,” and to clarify whether it is possible to understand the real nature of science without any rational approach. It is argued that it would be insufficient to determine the content of the science merely by the social factors, the natural facts might be meaningful by themselves as well.Bilimin ve bilimsel bilginin doğasını açıklamak için farklı pek çok yaklaşım geliştirilmiştir. Özellikle ondokuzuncu yüzyıldaki bazı bilimsel kuramların (evrim kuramı gibi) tercihinde toplumsal etmenlerin rolünün gözlemlenmesi, bilimsel bilginin toplumbilimsel bir araştırma konusu olduğu kanısını yaygınlaştırmıştır. Bu süreçte ortaya konan açıklama ve gerekçelendirme modellerinden biri de “Strong Programme” (Güçlü Program) olarak anılandır. “Strong Programme” ın temel savı, bilimsel kuramların tercihinde sanıldığı gibi ussal ve evrensel ölçütlerin değil, toplumsal etmenlerin belirleyici olduğu yönündeydi. Dolayısıyla bu görüşü savunanlar, bilim ve bilimsel yöntem için ortaya konan tüm ussalcı çözümlemeleri reddettiler. Bu çalışmada, “Strong Programme”ın ileri sürdüğü savların haklılığı ve sanıldığı gibi usçu bir yaklaşım olmaksızın bilimin gerçek doğasını anlamanın olanaklı olup olmadığı soruşturulmaktadır. Bilimin içeriğinin bütünüyle ve sadece toplumsal etmenlerce belirlenemeyeceği, doğa olaylarının da kendi başlarına anlamlı olabileceği ileri sürülmektedir.

As an oversimplification of economic reductionism, the base/superstructure metaphor is over identified with Marxist theory of the state, and the state has been considered to be corresponding to the latter. This over identification was seen inconvenient by some Marxist theoreticians who have been looking forward to analyse the state through a non-reductionist perspective. In this article, those attempts are compared and contrasted by dividing them into two categories and by using open Marxism as the banner of a distinctive group among non-reductionists. The main theme of this article is to clarify major theses of non-reductionists and to address to the apparent tensions within themselves. Despite their points of differentiations, they share a commonality in their hostility towards ‘traditional historical materialism’ and even towards structural Marxism. The positions mentioned in this article may not be considered as a coherent and consistent non-reductionist theory of the state due to their variations within themselves; however, at least they are successful as contemporary ‘attempts’ of non-reductionist Marxist theory of the state that would pave ground to a more consistent theory. In this article, they are considered to be stimulating as they ground their unease with reductionism on appealing issues.Ekonomik indirgemeciliğin bir yalınlaştırması olan altyapı/üstyapı metaforu Marksist devlet kuramıyla aşırı özdeşleştirilmektedir ve bu bağlamda devletin üstyapıya denk düştüğü düşünülmektedir. Bu aşırı özdeşleştirme, devleti indirgemeci olmayan bir bakış açısıyla çözümlemeye çaba gösteren bazı Marksist kuramcılar tarafından uygunsuz bulunmuştur. Bu makalede, bu çabalar sınıflara ayrılarak karşılaştırılmıştır ve açık Marksizm, indirgemeci olmayan yaklaşımlar içinde farklı bir grubun etiketi olarak kullanılmıştır. Bu makalenin ana teması, indirgemeci olmayan yaklaşımların temel tezlerini ortaya koymak ve bunlar arasındaki görünür gerilimlere dikkat çekmektir. Farklılaştıkları noktalar olmasına karşın ‘geleneksel tarihsel maddecilik’ ve yapısalcı Marksizme karşı tutumları ortaktır. Bu makalede ele alınan yaklaşımlar kendi aralarındaki çeşitliliklerden ötürü açık ve tutarlı bir indirgemeci olmayan devlet kuramı olarak değerlendirilmeyebilir; ancak, bunlar en azından daha tutarlı bir indirgemeci olmayan çağdaş Marksist devlet kuramına doğru evrilecek başarılı ‘çabalar’dır. Bu makalede, bu çabalar sorunları ele almada indirgemeciliğe karşı tedirginliklerini temellendirdikleri ölçüde ufuk açıcı görülmektedir.

According to Thagard, the behavior of practitioners of a field may also be used for demarcation between science and pseudoscience due to its social dimension in addition to the epistemic one. I defended the tendency of pseudoscientists to commit fallacies, and the number of fallacies they commit can be a secondary tool for demarcation problem and this tool is consistent with Thagardian approach. In this paper, I selected the astrology as the case and I revealed nine types of logical fallacies frequently committed by astrologers while introducing their field and/or defending their claims against the scientific inquiries and refutation efforts. I also argued that recognizing these fallacies may help the audience to demarcate between the scientific and the pseudoscientific arguments.Thagard’a göre sözdebilimlerin epistemolojik boyutunun yanı sıra sosyal boyutu da bulunmaktadır ve bilim ve sözdebilim ayrım probleminde bir alanın uygulayıcılarının davranışları da bir araç olarak kullanılabilir. Bu makalede sözdebilimcilerin mantıksal safsata kullanmaya olan eğilimleri ve safsataya başvurma sıklıklarının bilim-sözdebilim ayrımında kullanılabilecek ikincil bir araç olduğu savunulmaktadır. Örnek olarak astroloji sözdebilimi seçilmiş ve astrologların alanlarını tanıtırken ya da savunurken sıklıkla başvurdukları dokuz mantıksal safsataya yer verilmiştir. Ayrıca bu safsataları tanımanın bilimsel ve sözdebilimsel argümanları ayırt edebilmede yardımcı olacağı ileri sürülmüştür.

According to the standard interpretation, counterfactuals fail to satisfy the following inference rules: contraposition, strengthening the antecedent and hypothetical syllogism. Contrary to the standard interpretation, Brogaard and Salerno (2008) argue that counterfactuals do satisfy these inference rules when context features are kept fixed in evaluating arguments with counterfactuals. For them, the main reason behind claiming that counterfactuals fail to satisfy these inference rules is the illicit shift in context when evaluating the arguments in question. If true, Brogaard and Salerno’s claim would have a devastating effect on the counterfactuals literature because almost the entire literature is based on the assumption that counterfactuals do not satisfy those inference rules. Given its importance, Brogaard and Salerno’s claim is examined in this paper. They are right in claiming that contextual features must be kept fixed throughout the evaluation of an argument, but the rest of their claim rests on a faulty reasoning. In the paper, I show that counterfactuals do fail to satisfy contraposition, strengthening the antecedent and hypothetical syllogism even when contextual features are kept fixed throughout the evaluation of an argument in the way Brogaard and Salerno require.Karşıolgusal önermelerin Lewis tarafından geliştirilen standart yorumuna göre, normal şartlı önermeler kullanıldığında geçerli olan bazı çıkarsama kuralları karşıolgusal önermeler kullanıldığında geçersiz olmaktadır. Bu çıkarsama kurallarından öne çıkanlar şunlardır: tersevirme, önbileşen güçlendirme ve varsayımsal kıyas. Brogaard ve Salerno (2008), literatürde genel kabul gören standart yorumun aksine, bu bahsi geçen çıkarsama kurallarının karşıolgusal önermeler kullanıldığında dahi geçerli olduğunu iddia etmektedirler. Brogaard ve Salerno’ya göre bu çıkarsama kurallarının kullanıldığı argümanları değerlendirirken eğer bağlama dair özellikler sabit tutulur ise bu durum açıkça görülecektir. Yani Brogaard ve Salerno'ya göre bahsi geçen çıkarsama kurallarının karşıolgusal önermeler için geçerli olmadığının düşünülmesi, argümanların değerlendirilmesinde bağlam özelliklerinin farkında olmadan değiştirilmesinden kaynaklanmaktadır. Brogaard ve Salerno’nun bu iddiası, eğer doğru ise, çok önemlidir. Çünkü karşıolgusal önermeler üzerine olan literatürün tümü standard yoruma ve onun doğurduğu sonuçların kabulüne dayanmaktadır. Brogaard ve Salerno’nun iddiası doğru ise bu literatürün tümü anlamsızlaşacaktır. Bu makalede Brogaard ve Salerno’nun iddiası detaylı olarak incelenmektedir. Brogaard ve Salerno’nun belirttiği gibi argümanlar değerlendirilirken bağlama dair özellikler sabit tutulmalıdır. Ancak bağlama dair özellikler sabit tutulduğunda dahi karşıolgusal önermeler bahsi geçen çıkarsama kurallarını geçersiz kılmaktadır. Yani, Brogaard ve Salerno’nun ana iddiası yanlıştır. Bu makalede bu yanlışlık gösterilmektedir.

My title, “Belief in Naturalism,” signals, not that I adopt naturalism as an article of faith, but that my purpose in this paper is to shed some light on what belief is, on why the concept of belief is needed in epistemology, and how all this relates to debates about epistemological naturalism. After clarifying the many varieties of naturalism, philosophical and other (section 1), and then the various forms of epistemological naturalism specifically (section 2), I offer a theory of belief in which three elements – the behavioral, the neurophysiological, and the socio-historical – interlock (section 3), and apply this theory to resolve some contested questions: about whether animals and pre-linguistic infants have beliefs, about the fallibility of introspection, and about self-deception (section 4).

In “Hume and Julius Caesar,” G.E.M. Anscombe argues that some historical claims, such as “Julius Caesar was assassinated,” serve as touchstones for historical knowledge. Only Cartesian doubt can call them into question. I examine her reasons for thinking that the discipline of history must be grounded in claims that it is powerless to discredit. I argue that she is right to recognize that some historical claims are harder to dislodge than others, but wrong to contend that any are invulnerable to non-Cartesian doubt.

The present study reiterates one of the main ideas that we exposed in 1983, in the paper “Din fals rezultă orice” (“From False Follows Anything”), published in the volume Întemeieri raţionale în filosofia ştiinţei (Rational Foundations in the Philosophy of Science) when we referred to the notion of semi-truth, as a third alethic value, placed between „truth” and „falsehood”, thus contributing to the functionality of the trivalent logic. Now we analyze the conceptions of Petre Botezatu, Mario Bunge, Karl R. Popper and Nicholas Rescher, in order to argue that it is important not to identify the epistemological term „probable” (= uncertain) with the semantic term „partial” or „approximate”, when we speak about the concept of truth.

In general, scholars have viewed the mathematical detail of Plato’s Divided Line discussion in Republic VI-VII as irrelevant to the substance of his epistemology.Against this stance this essay argues that this detail serves a serious and instructive purpose and makes manifest some central features of Plato’s account of human knowledge.

Assigning a positive signification to the concept of ‘ideology,’ the basic hypothesis of this paper is that both what we call social reality and what we understand by the expression social knowledge are the result of an ideological projection. In other words, it is my opinion that ideology accomplishes a double purpose: on the one hand, it actively participates in the construction of social reality; on the other hand, it also plays the role of an instrument of social knowledge. To support this assertion, I advance the idea of ideological conventions that are constituent parts of the social projection of reality and that emerge as ‘landmarks’ of the processof understanding it. I provide arguments that, as long as that they are found at the level of social institutions and thus being reproduced in discourse, including symbolically – as codes, norms, rules, habits, behaviours, etc., both formal and informal – , ideological conventions are an expression of social identity, being useful in explaining and understanding social reality and its possibilities of evolving. Finally, taking into account the premise that while social knowledge is not entirely ideological, the ideological element is unavoidable in the process of configuring this knowledge (contributing in a decisive manner to the changes emerging at the societal level), I propose an integrated, interdisciplinary model of ideological analysis.

Between 1906 and 1911, as a response to Betrand’s Russell’s review of La Science et l’Hypothèse, Henri Poincaré launched an attack on the movement to formalise the foundations of mathematics reducing it to logic. The main point is the following: the universality of logic is based on the idea that their truth is independent of any context including epistemic and cultural contexts. From the free context notion of truth and proof it follows that, given an axiomatic system, nothing new can follow. One of the main strategies of Poincaré’s solution to this dilemma is based on the notions of understanding and of grasping the architecture of the propositions of mathematics. According to this view mathematic rigour does not reduce to “derive blindly” without gaps from axioms,mathematical rigour is, according to Poincaré, closely linked to the ability to grasp the architecture of mathematics and contribute to an extension of the meaning embedded in structures that constitute the architecture of mathematical propositions. The focus of my paper relates precisely to the notion of architecture and to the notion of understanding. According to my reconstruction, Poincaré’s suggestions could be seen as pointing out that understanding is linked to reason not only within a structure but reasoning about the structure.

The standard arguments for antirealism are densely abstract, often enigmatic, and thus unpersuasive. The ubiquity and irreducibility of what linguists call generic statements provides a clear argument from a specific and readily understandable case. We think and talk about the world as necessarily subject to generalization. But the chief vehicles of generalization are generic statements, typically of the form “Fs are G,” not universal statements, typically of the form “All Fs are G.” Universal statements themselves are usually intended and understood as though they were only generic. Even if there are universal facts, as Russell held, there are no generic facts. There is no genericity in the world as it is “in-itself.” There is genericity in it only as it is “for-us.”

Whether or not all assertion counts as testimony (a matter not addressed here), it is argued that not all testimony involves assertion. Since many views in theepistemology of testimony assume that testimony requires assertion, such views are (at best) insufficiently general. This result also points to what we might call the epistemic significance of assertion as such.

This paper highlights an aspect of Gettier situations, one standardly not accorded interpretive significance. A remark of Gettier’s suggests its potential importance. And once that aspect’s contribution is made explicit, an argument unfolds for the conclusion that it is fairly simple to have knowledge within Gettier situations. Indeed, that argument dissolves the traditional Gettier problem.

The paper focuses on Gottlob Frege‘s so called Context Principle (CP hereafter), which counts as one of the most controversial points of his philosophy. Due to its importance and centrality in Frege‘s thought, a detailed discussion of the principle requires a detailed analysis of almost all aspects of his philosophy. Obviously, such a task cannot be successfully accomplished here. Thus I limit myself to address only two questions concerning the CP: what role does the principle play (in Grundlagen) and how can we interpret it. Addressing the first problem is required in order to address the second. Most authors interpreted CP from the perspective of Frege‘s later distinction between sense and reference, which I will call the ‗semantic interpretation‘. Although I accept this perspective as valuable and important, I will initially inverse the action and I will try to approach CP, and generally Grundlagen, in a more natural way, contextually, namely setting them in the initial logicist plan of the Begriffschrift. Finally, I will try to provide an interpretation concerning the alleged conflict between CP and Frege‘s compositionality thesis such that they could coherently stay together.

In the present paper, I offer a new argument to show that presentism about time is incompatible with time travel. Time travel requires leaving the present, which, under presentism, contains all of reality. Therefore to leave the present moment is to leave reality entirely; i.e. to go out of existence. Presentist "time travel" is therefore best seen as a form of suicide, not as a mode of transportation. Eternalists about time do not face the same difficulty, and time travel is compossible with eternalism.

Decision-theoretic approach and a nonlinguistic theory of norms are applied in the paper in an attempt to explain the nature of scientific rationality. It is considered as a normative system accepted by scientific community. When we say that a certain action is rational, we express a speaker‘s acceptance of some norms concerning a definite action. Scientists can choose according to epistemic utility or other rules and values, which themselves have a variable nature. Rationality can be identified with a decision to accept a norm. This type of decision cannot be reduced only to its linguistic formulation; it is an act of evolvement of the normative regulation of human behavior. Norms are treated as decisions of a normative authority: a specific scientific community is the normative authority in science. These norms form a system and they are absolutely objective in the context of individual scientists. There exists an invariant core in all the norms of rationality, accounting for their not being liable to change, as compared with the flexibility of legal norms. The acceptance of and abidance by these norms is of social importance—it affects the aims of the community. A norm only defines the common framework and principles of scientific problem-solving; its application is a matter of professional skills and creative approach to a particular problem. It is of no importance at all, if an agent‘s cognitive abilities do not live up to the requirements of a norm. Such discrepancy can be compensated for by the fact that a scientist carries out work in a conceptual and normative framework established by a respective scientific community.

This article offers a simple technical resolution to the problem of induction, which is to say that general facts are not always inferred from observations of particular facts, but are themselves sometimes defeasibly observed. The article suggests a holistic account of observation that allows for general statements in empirical theories to be interpreted as observation reports, in place of the common but arguably obsolete idea that observations are exclusively particular. Predictions and other particular statements about unobservable facts can then appear as deductive consequences of such general observation statements, rather than inductive consequences of other particular statements. This semantic shift resolves the problem by eliminating induction as a basic form of inference, and folding the justification of general beliefs into the more basic problem of perception.

There are noncontroversial ways in which our words are context dependent. Gradable adjectives like 'flat‘ or 'bald‘, for example. A more controversial proposition is that nouns can be context dependent in a reasonably similar way. If this is true, then it looks like we can develop a positive account of semantic content as sensitive to context. This might be worrying for the epistemology of testimony. That is, how can we garner knowledge from testimony if it‘s the case that, though our syntactic utterances are identical, the semantic content of them may fail to be uniform? What if we mean different things by the same words? I argue that these kinds of semantic divergences provide the groundwork for a new kind of Gettier case. That is, given the likelihood of divergent semantic content, we can see a way to scenarios in which, despite that the semantic content is uniform, we might get justified true beliefs that nevertheless fail as knowledge. This, because it just as likely could have been the case that relevant contexts were dissimilar, and thus relevant semantic content would have been divergent. Lastly, where the phenomenon does occur, we never would have known the difference.