Publikation: Can Teleosemantics Deflect the EAAN?
Dateien
Datum
Autor:innen
Herausgeber:innen
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
URI (zitierfähiger Link)
DOI (zitierfähiger Link)
Internationale Patentnummer
Link zur Lizenz
Angaben zur Forschungsförderung
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Sammlungen
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Publikationstyp
Publikationsstatus
Erschienen in
Zusammenfassung
Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism aims to show that the conjunction of contemporary evolutionary theory (E) with the claim that there is no God (N) cannot be rationally accepted. Where R is the claim that our cognitive faculties are reliable, the argument is:
1. The probability of R given N and E is low or inscrutable.
2. Anyone who sees (1) and accepts (N&E) has a defeater for R, and this defeater cannot be defeated or deflected.
3. Anyone who has an undefeated, undeflected defeater for R has an
undefeated, undeflected defeater for everything she believes.
4. Therefore she has an undefeated, undeflected defeater for (N&E).
Plantinga (2011) defends the second premise. It examines and rejects several candidate defeater defeaters and defeater deflectors. One candidate is Millikan’s teleosemantics. I show that Plantinga’s motives for rejecting teleosemantics as a defeater deflector are inadequate. I then show that teleosemantics is not on its own an adequate defeater deflector. Then I offer an additional premise that constitutes a defeater deflector in conjunction with teleosemantics.
Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
Schlagwörter
Konferenz
Rezension
Zitieren
ISO 690
LEAHY, Brian, 2013. Can Teleosemantics Deflect the EAAN?. In: Philosophia. 2013, 41(1), pp. 221-238. ISSN 0048-3893. eISSN 1574-9274. Available under: doi: 10.1007/s11406-012-9374-5BibTex
@article{Leahy2013Teleo-30067,
year={2013},
doi={10.1007/s11406-012-9374-5},
title={Can Teleosemantics Deflect the EAAN?},
number={1},
volume={41},
issn={0048-3893},
journal={Philosophia},
pages={221--238},
author={Leahy, Brian}
}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/123456789/30067">
<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
<dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/45"/>
<dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/30067/3/Leahy_0-281242.pdf"/>
<bibo:uri rdf:resource="http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/30067"/>
<foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
<dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism aims to show that the conjunction of contemporary evolutionary theory (E) with the claim that there is no God (N) cannot be rationally accepted. Where R is the claim that our cognitive faculties are reliable, the argument is:<br />1. The probability of R given N and E is low or inscrutable.<br />2. Anyone who sees (1) and accepts (N&E) has a defeater for R, and this defeater cannot be defeated or deflected.<br />3. Anyone who has an undefeated, undeflected defeater for R has an<br />undefeated, undeflected defeater for everything she believes.<br />4. Therefore she has an undefeated, undeflected defeater for (N&E).<br />Plantinga (2011) defends the second premise. It examines and rejects several candidate defeater defeaters and defeater deflectors. One candidate is Millikan’s teleosemantics. I show that Plantinga’s motives for rejecting teleosemantics as a defeater deflector are inadequate. I then show that teleosemantics is not on its own an adequate defeater deflector. Then I offer an additional premise that constitutes a defeater deflector in conjunction with teleosemantics.</dcterms:abstract>
<dc:contributor>Leahy, Brian</dc:contributor>
<dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/30067/3/Leahy_0-281242.pdf"/>
<dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/>
<dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/45"/>
<dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2015-02-25T15:23:03Z</dc:date>
<dcterms:title>Can Teleosemantics Deflect the EAAN?</dcterms:title>
<dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights>
<void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
<dc:creator>Leahy, Brian</dc:creator>
<dcterms:issued>2013</dcterms:issued>
<dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2015-02-25T15:23:03Z</dcterms:available>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
