Naturalism and Inference: On the Need for a Theory of Material Inference
My research centers on analytic pragmatist approaches to intentionality. One goal that defenders of such approaches set for themselves is to be able to provide a naturalistically sound account of intentionality without being pejoratively scientistic. Many critics argue that this is an unattainable g...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Others |
Language: | en |
Published: |
VANDERBILT
2017
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://etd.library.vanderbilt.edu/available/etd-07242017-143430/ |
id |
ndltd-VANDERBILT-oai-VANDERBILTETD-etd-07242017-143430 |
---|---|
record_format |
oai_dc |
spelling |
ndltd-VANDERBILT-oai-VANDERBILTETD-etd-07242017-1434302017-08-09T05:13:44Z Naturalism and Inference: On the Need for a Theory of Material Inference Dabay, Thomas Philosophy My research centers on analytic pragmatist approaches to intentionality. One goal that defenders of such approaches set for themselves is to be able to provide a naturalistically sound account of intentionality without being pejoratively scientistic. Many critics argue that this is an unattainable goal, and I begin my dissertation by framing in neutral terms what I take to be the core of these criticsâ objection. I call this the Pincer Objection, and while surveying the works of four prominent analytic pragmatistsâDonald Davidson, John McDowell, Huw Price, and Robert BrandomâI argue that all of them fall prey to the Pincer Objection. The reason they fall prey to this objection is because within their semantic theories they give explanatory priority to the semantic properties of propositions (as opposed to those of concepts or inferences). I argue that, as an analytic pragmatist, I should instead prioritize the semantic properties of inferences, and that once I do so I am faced with the question: How are materially valid inferences possible? Finally, I argue that if I can provide an answer to this question, then I can successfully address the Pincer Objection. In this manner, my dissertation is not directed towards answering this question, but instead towards establishing the naturalistic credentials of accounts of intentionality that take this question seriously. Scott F. Aikin Robert B. Talisse Jeffrey Tlumak John Lachs Catherine W. Legg VANDERBILT 2017-08-08 text application/pdf http://etd.library.vanderbilt.edu/available/etd-07242017-143430/ http://etd.library.vanderbilt.edu/available/etd-07242017-143430/ en unrestricted I hereby certify that, if appropriate, I have obtained and attached hereto a written permission statement from the owner(s) of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis, dissertation, or project report, allowing distribution as specified below. I certify that the version I submitted is the same as that approved by my advisory committee. I hereby grant to Vanderbilt University or its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible, under the conditions specified below, my thesis, dissertation, or project report in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis, dissertation or project report. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis, dissertation, or project report. |
collection |
NDLTD |
language |
en |
format |
Others
|
sources |
NDLTD |
topic |
Philosophy |
spellingShingle |
Philosophy Dabay, Thomas Naturalism and Inference: On the Need for a Theory of Material Inference |
description |
My research centers on analytic pragmatist approaches to intentionality. One goal that defenders of such approaches set for themselves is to be able to provide a naturalistically sound account of intentionality without being pejoratively scientistic. Many critics argue that this is an unattainable goal, and I begin my dissertation by framing in neutral terms what I take to be the core of these criticsâ objection. I call this the Pincer Objection, and while surveying the works of four prominent analytic pragmatistsâDonald Davidson, John McDowell, Huw Price, and Robert BrandomâI argue that all of them fall prey to the Pincer Objection. The reason they fall prey to this objection is because within their semantic theories they give explanatory priority to the semantic properties of propositions (as opposed to those of concepts or inferences). I argue that, as an analytic pragmatist, I should instead prioritize the semantic properties of inferences, and that once I do so I am faced with the question: How are materially valid inferences possible? Finally, I argue that if I can provide an answer to this question, then I can successfully address the Pincer Objection. In this manner, my dissertation is not directed towards answering this question, but instead towards establishing the naturalistic credentials of accounts of intentionality that take this question seriously. |
author2 |
Scott F. Aikin |
author_facet |
Scott F. Aikin Dabay, Thomas |
author |
Dabay, Thomas |
author_sort |
Dabay, Thomas |
title |
Naturalism and Inference: On the Need for a Theory of Material Inference |
title_short |
Naturalism and Inference: On the Need for a Theory of Material Inference |
title_full |
Naturalism and Inference: On the Need for a Theory of Material Inference |
title_fullStr |
Naturalism and Inference: On the Need for a Theory of Material Inference |
title_full_unstemmed |
Naturalism and Inference: On the Need for a Theory of Material Inference |
title_sort |
naturalism and inference: on the need for a theory of material inference |
publisher |
VANDERBILT |
publishDate |
2017 |
url |
http://etd.library.vanderbilt.edu/available/etd-07242017-143430/ |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT dabaythomas naturalismandinferenceontheneedforatheoryofmaterialinference |
_version_ |
1718514835637927936 |