Titlebook: Naturalistic Epistemology; A Symposium of Two D Abner Shimony,Debra Nails Book 1987 D. Reidel Publishing Company 1987 Charles Sanders Peirc

Opponent

取回

殘暴

Introductionell performed unless proper attention is paid to the place of the knowing subject in nature. All philosophers who can appropriately be called ‘naturalistic epistemologists’ subscribe to two theses: (a) human beings, including their cognitive faculties, are entities in nature, interacting with other

過渡時期

脫落

Comment on WebbKant’s arguments concerning geometrical knowledge. He brings to bear on this project a large body of information concerning the Kantian texts, the geometrical writings of Kant’s predecessors and contemporaries, and the great harvest of results on the foundations of geometry in the nineteenth and twe

Consensus

Peirce’s Conception of Truth: A Framework for Naturalistic Epistemology?eenth-century founders of this interdisciplinary enterprise, to wit, Charles Peirce. I shall attempt to illustrate the dilemma by noting a certain ambiguity in Peirce’s thought; thereafter I shall outline, and discuss the viability of, what I take to be Peirce’s resolution of the dilemma.

OMIT

The Philosophical Significance of Piaget’s Researches on the Genesis of the Concept of Timeed by Albert Einstein who fifteen years before the publication of that book (i.e. in 1931) presided over the international course of lectures on psychology and philosophy at Davos in Switzerland. Einstein suggested to Piaget a number of questions such as the following ones: “Is our intuitive grasp o

capsule

Comment on ?apek recognized as the most massive contribution to the discipline made by any single person. One wishes to know, however, what the relevance of Piaget’s work is to a more narrowly construed naturalistic epistemology — to a normative discipline which is devoted to judging epistemic claims, but which doe

冬眠

Reply to Shimonyt appear entirely clear. I am glad to note that there are some large areas of agreement between us while the differences of view — some of them at least — are apparently due to misunderstanding rather than to the lack of agreement. I am going to comment on his comments in the same order in which he

幼兒