Publikation: Vier Begründungsbegriffe
Lade...
Dateien
Datum
2001
Autor:innen
Herausgeber:innen
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
URI (zitierfähiger Link)
Internationale Patentnummer
Link zur Lizenz
Angaben zur Forschungsförderung
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Open Access Green
Sammlungen
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Publikationstyp
Beitrag zu einem Sammelband
Publikationsstatus
Published
Erschienen in
GRUNDMANN, T., ed.. Challenges to Traditional Epistemology. Paderborn: Mentis-Verl., 2001, pp. 33-52
Zusammenfassung
The paper distinguishes four basic notions of one assumption or proposition being a reason for (or justifying) another: a deductive notion, a computational notion, a causal notion, and a positive relevance notion (as first defended by me in Spohn (1983) "Deterministic and Probabilistic Reasons and Causes"). After setting these notions within three important distinctions of present-day epistemology - knowledge vs. belief, internalistic vs. externalistic, and normative vs. naturalized epistemology - and after explaining why I tend to be a normative internalist belief theorist, I compare the four notions and argue that the positive relevance notion is the most adequate and fruitful one.
Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
100 Philosophie
Schlagwörter
Konferenz
Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined
Zitieren
ISO 690
SPOHN, Wolfgang, 2001. Vier Begründungsbegriffe. In: GRUNDMANN, T., ed.. Challenges to Traditional Epistemology. Paderborn: Mentis-Verl., 2001, pp. 33-52BibTex
@incollection{Spohn2001Begru-3461,
year={2001},
title={Vier Begründungsbegriffe},
publisher={Mentis-Verl.},
address={Paderborn},
booktitle={Challenges to Traditional Epistemology},
pages={33--52},
editor={Grundmann, T.},
author={Spohn, Wolfgang}
}RDF
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" >
<rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/3461">
<dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2011-03-23T13:46:26Z</dcterms:available>
<dcterms:issued>2001</dcterms:issued>
<dc:creator>Spohn, Wolfgang</dc:creator>
<foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
<dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/3461/1/Spohn_2001_Vier_Begruendungsbegriffe.pdf"/>
<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
<dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/>
<bibo:uri rdf:resource="http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/3461"/>
<dcterms:bibliographicCitation>Zuerst ersch. in: Challenges to Traditional Epistemology / T. Grundmann (ed.). - Paderborn: Mentis-Verl., 2001, S. 33-52</dcterms:bibliographicCitation>
<dc:language>deu</dc:language>
<dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/3461/1/Spohn_2001_Vier_Begruendungsbegriffe.pdf"/>
<void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
<dc:contributor>Spohn, Wolfgang</dc:contributor>
<dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2011-03-23T13:46:26Z</dc:date>
<dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">The paper distinguishes four basic notions of one assumption or proposition being a reason for (or justifying) another: a deductive notion, a computational notion, a causal notion, and a positive relevance notion (as first defended by me in Spohn (1983) "Deterministic and Probabilistic Reasons and Causes"). After setting these notions within three important distinctions of present-day epistemology - knowledge vs. belief, internalistic vs. externalistic, and normative vs. naturalized epistemology - and after explaining why I tend to be a normative internalist belief theorist, I compare the four notions and argue that the positive relevance notion is the most adequate and fruitful one.</dcterms:abstract>
<dcterms:title>Vier Begründungsbegriffe</dcterms:title>
<dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/>
<dcterms:rights rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/"/>
<dc:rights>Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic</dc:rights>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>Interner Vermerk
xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter
Prüfungsdatum der Dissertation
Finanzierungsart
Kommentar zur Publikation
Allianzlizenz
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
Internationale Co-Autor:innen
Universitätsbibliographie
Nein
