標(biāo)題: Titlebook: Epistemic Pluralism; Annalisa Coliva,Nikolaj Jang Lee Linding Pedersen Book 2017 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under ex [打印本頁] 作者: Nutraceutical 時間: 2025-3-21 19:41
書目名稱Epistemic Pluralism影響因子(影響力)
書目名稱Epistemic Pluralism影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名
書目名稱Epistemic Pluralism網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度
書目名稱Epistemic Pluralism網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度學(xué)科排名
書目名稱Epistemic Pluralism被引頻次
書目名稱Epistemic Pluralism被引頻次學(xué)科排名
書目名稱Epistemic Pluralism年度引用
書目名稱Epistemic Pluralism年度引用學(xué)科排名
書目名稱Epistemic Pluralism讀者反饋
書目名稱Epistemic Pluralism讀者反饋學(xué)科排名
作者: 策略 時間: 2025-3-22 00:15 作者: 收藏品 時間: 2025-3-22 03:27 作者: Onerous 時間: 2025-3-22 04:53
How to Be a Pluralist About Self-Knowledgedorses constitutivism with respect to first-personal self-knowledge and defends it from the . devastating objection of rendering it a misnomer to call that kind of self-. thus. Moreover, it embraces methodological pluralism with respect to third-personal self-knowledge and draws attention to the epi作者: Debark 時間: 2025-3-22 12:20 作者: 改正 時間: 2025-3-22 15:41
2946-2851 nt, self-knowledge and the status of philosophical disputes about ontology) this fascinating new volume is essential reading for scholars, researchers and advanced students in the discipline..978-3-319-88034-1978-3-319-65460-7Series ISSN 2946-2851 Series E-ISSN 2946-286X 作者: 改正 時間: 2025-3-22 18:54
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7936-9 do two things. First, I explain why the distinction between epistemic monism and epistemic pluralism is most interestingly drawn at the level of non-derivative epistemic goods. Second, I make the observation that, at a very fundamental level, the varieties of epistemic pluralism presented in Sect.?作者: ERUPT 時間: 2025-3-22 21:43 作者: –吃 時間: 2025-3-23 04:52
L. Szilágyi,S. M. Szilágyi,Z. Benyóhe locality of rational evaluation (in conjunction with a reasonable appreciation of epistemic diversity) commits the Wittgenstenian to a further epistemic incommensurability thesis. Next, Duncan Pritchard’s (e.g. 2009; 2015) novel attempt to save the hinge epistemologist from a commitment to episte作者: MITE 時間: 2025-3-23 09:04
Adaptive Fault-Tolerant Controldorses constitutivism with respect to first-personal self-knowledge and defends it from the . devastating objection of rendering it a misnomer to call that kind of self-. thus. Moreover, it embraces methodological pluralism with respect to third-personal self-knowledge and draws attention to the epi作者: amorphous 時間: 2025-3-23 13:27 作者: 激怒某人 時間: 2025-3-23 15:37
How to Be a Pluralist About Disagreementxastic disagreement. One such pluralist account, developed out of John MacFarlane’s work, is . .. I criticise Disjunctive Pluralism and argue for an alternative pluralist theory of disagreement that I call . .. Moreover, I argue that kinship pluralism can be adequately extended to other varieties of disagreement, namely . and . disagreement.作者: 有權(quán)威 時間: 2025-3-23 19:49
A Pluralistic Way Out of Epistemic Deflationism About Ontological Disputestical features and virtues that is “internal” to each position. I will urge that this view is to be preferred to epistemicism on account of its greater charity towards the participants involved in the relevant ontological debate.作者: 宏偉 時間: 2025-3-23 23:01 作者: Genteel 時間: 2025-3-24 04:52
Lixian Zhang,Ting Yang,Peng Shi,Yanzheng Zhuxastic disagreement. One such pluralist account, developed out of John MacFarlane’s work, is . .. I criticise Disjunctive Pluralism and argue for an alternative pluralist theory of disagreement that I call . .. Moreover, I argue that kinship pluralism can be adequately extended to other varieties of disagreement, namely . and . disagreement.作者: Fissure 時間: 2025-3-24 07:51 作者: auxiliary 時間: 2025-3-24 14:23 作者: 連鎖,連串 時間: 2025-3-24 17:52
Conclusion and Future Research Directionstemic goods. So the pluralism is only apparent. I consider two test cases to confirm this verdict: pragmatic encroachment and epistemic injustice. The conclusion is that there are no good reasons to renounce the traditional view of epistemic monism.作者: PATHY 時間: 2025-3-24 20:38 作者: 愛得痛了 時間: 2025-3-25 01:36 作者: Hyperlipidemia 時間: 2025-3-25 05:20 作者: 沉思的魚 時間: 2025-3-25 08:37 作者: Urea508 時間: 2025-3-25 12:27
Epistemic Relativism and Pluralismd the notion that epistemic systems have a permanent and fixed structure of principles. I end with some tentative comments on the relationship between epistemic relativism and William Alston’s epistemic pluralism.作者: 送秋波 時間: 2025-3-25 19:10 作者: 漂白 時間: 2025-3-25 23:00 作者: 可憎 時間: 2025-3-26 04:12
Parametric Optimization of Decision Systems,s to draw out some of these implications, articulate and explore different versions of the view, consider its motivations and applications, and investigate its connection to other views in epistemology—in particular, epistemic relativism.作者: Amenable 時間: 2025-3-26 06:41
Design Optimization of Micromixers,onceptual analysis of not being vulnerable to the so-called paradox of analysis. Moreover, explicationist epistemology is intrinsically immune to the Gettier problem. I proceed to identify three senses in which the former is inherently pluralistic. For example, it allows for a plurality of legitimat作者: Arteriography 時間: 2025-3-26 12:12
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7936-9are cases in hand. According to the alethic pluralist, there are several ways of being true. According to the logical pluralist, there are several ways of being valid. Section?. introduces epistemic pluralism through the work of Tyler Burge, Alvin Goldman, and William Alston. In the work of these au作者: extract 時間: 2025-3-26 16:02
Conclusion and Future Research Directiont be a unified view of justification and of knowledge. After examining a few motivations for this view, I distinguish three versions of it. The first claims that the concept of justification is ambiguous and that the internalist version is compatible with the externalist one (epistemic compatibilism作者: 幸福愉悅感 時間: 2025-3-26 18:22
,Advisor’s Problem and Its Solutions,ells out a distinction between two ways of tackling the traditional question: “what is a justified belief?” Sections?. and . exploit some of the upshots of Sect.?. in order to show that classical reliabilism, accessibilism and presumably many other accounts of justification use the predicate “justif作者: 意外的成功 時間: 2025-3-26 23:59
Data Structures for Combinatorial Problems,ese epistemic notions in their criticisms or defenses of the idea that intuitions have a positive evidential status. I argue, however, that epistemic concepts like . are ill-suited for evaluations of our philosophical methodologies. The epistemic standards that govern inquiry in philosophy are separ作者: SKIFF 時間: 2025-3-27 04:32 作者: 勉勵 時間: 2025-3-27 09:20
Guaranteed Cost Control for Delayed GRNsternative epistemic systems” that are all equally correct. Boghossian claims to find this view in Richard Rorty’s discussion of the conflict between Galileo and the Catholic Church. Boghossian challenges this commitment by arguing that Galileo and Cardinal Bellarmine did not use epistemic systems th作者: 陶器 時間: 2025-3-27 12:28
L. Szilágyi,S. M. Szilágyi,Z. Benyó different, genuinely alternative epistemic systems’, but (ii) ‘no facts by virtue of which one of these systems is more correct than any of the others’. Embracing the former claim is more or less uncontroversial—viz. a descriptive fact about epistemic diversity. The latter claim, by contrast, is ve作者: MAIZE 時間: 2025-3-27 14:54 作者: BLANK 時間: 2025-3-27 20:11
Lixian Zhang,Ting Yang,Peng Shi,Yanzheng Zhuht relate to each other. In this chapter, I focus on doxastic disagreements. I examine four different ways that doxastic disagreement can present itself: descriptive disagreement, conceptual disagreement, full disagreement and credal disagreement. Pluralism is one way to resolve issues concerning do作者: Between 時間: 2025-3-27 23:59 作者: Priapism 時間: 2025-3-28 02:30 作者: Congestion 時間: 2025-3-28 08:02
Palgrave Innovations in Philosophyhttp://image.papertrans.cn/e/image/313311.jpg作者: Additive 時間: 2025-3-28 14:20 作者: 鉤針織物 時間: 2025-3-28 15:11
Epistemic Pluralism978-3-319-65460-7Series ISSN 2946-2851 Series E-ISSN 2946-286X 作者: 使尷尬 時間: 2025-3-28 21:00 作者: DAMN 時間: 2025-3-29 02:16 作者: 牽連 時間: 2025-3-29 05:20
Introduction,s to draw out some of these implications, articulate and explore different versions of the view, consider its motivations and applications, and investigate its connection to other views in epistemology—in particular, epistemic relativism.作者: reperfusion 時間: 2025-3-29 08:07
The Pluralism of Justificationells out a distinction between two ways of tackling the traditional question: “what is a justified belief?” Sections?. and . exploit some of the upshots of Sect.?. in order to show that classical reliabilism, accessibilism and presumably many other accounts of justification use the predicate “justified” in distinct technical ways.作者: BAN 時間: 2025-3-29 14:38 作者: FLIT 時間: 2025-3-29 15:32 作者: Palpable 時間: 2025-3-29 22:38 作者: nettle 時間: 2025-3-30 02:42 作者: Junction 時間: 2025-3-30 06:30
