The Experts below are selected from a list of 291 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Markku Keinanen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the ontological form of tropes refuting douglas ehring s main argument against standard trope nominalism
    Philosophia, 2017
    Co-Authors: Jani Hakkarainen, Markku Keinanen
    Abstract:

    According to standard trope nominalism, there are simple tropes that do not have parts or multiply distinct aspects. Douglas Ehring’s Reductio Ad Absurdum against this standard view concludes that there are no simple tropes. In this paper, we provide a response to Ehring defending the standard view. Ehring’s argument may be refuted by (1) distinguishing the ontological form of tropes from their contribution to the ontological content of the world, and (2) construing tropes as having primitive identity. At the same time, standard trope nominalism is elaborated on by distinguishing between ontological form and content, for which there are also independent reasons.

  • The Ontological Form of Tropes - Refuting Douglas Ehring’s Main Argument against Standard Trope Nominalism
    Philosophia, 2017
    Co-Authors: Jani Hakkarainen, Markku Keinanen
    Abstract:

    According to standard trope nominalism, there are simple tropes that do not have parts or multiply distinct aspects. Douglas Ehring’s Reductio Ad Absurdum against this standard view concludes that there are no simple tropes. In this paper, we provide a response to Ehring defending the standard view. Ehring’s argument may be refuted by (1) distinguishing the ontological form of tropes from their contribution to the ontological content of the world, and (2) construing tropes as having primitive identity. At the same time, standard trope nominalism is elaborated on by distinguishing between ontological form and content, for which there are also independent reasons.

Robert P. Farrell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Feyerabend’s Reductio Ad Absurdum of ‘Rationalist’ Philosophies
    Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2003
    Co-Authors: Robert P. Farrell
    Abstract:

    Paul Feyerabend begins his notorious book Against Method (1975) in the following manner: The following essay is written in the conviction that anarchism, while perhaps not the most attractive political philosophy, is certainly excellent medicine for epistemology, and for the philosophy of science. The reason is not difficult to find. ‘History generally, and the history of revolutions in particular, is always richer in content, more varied, more many-sided, more lively and subtle than even’ the best historians and the best methodologist can imagine. History is full of ‘accidents and conjunctures and curious juxtapositions of events’ and it demonstrates to us the ‘complexity of human change and the unpredictable character of the ultimate consequences of any given act or decision of men’. Are we really to believe that the naive and simple-minded rules which methodologists take as their guide are capable of accounting for such a ‘maze of interactions’? And is it not clear that successful participation in a process of this kind is possible only for the ruthless opportunist who is not tied to any particular philosophy and who Adopts whatever procedure seems to fit the occasion? (1975, pp. 17–18)

  • feyerabend s Reductio Ad Absurdum of rationalist philosophies
    2003
    Co-Authors: Robert P. Farrell
    Abstract:

    Paul Feyerabend begins his notorious book Against Method (1975) in the following manner: The following essay is written in the conviction that anarchism, while perhaps not the most attractive political philosophy, is certainly excellent medicine for epistemology, and for the philosophy of science. The reason is not difficult to find. ‘History generally, and the history of revolutions in particular, is always richer in content, more varied, more many-sided, more lively and subtle than even’ the best historians and the best methodologist can imagine. History is full of ‘accidents and conjunctures and curious juxtapositions of events’ and it demonstrates to us the ‘complexity of human change and the unpredictable character of the ultimate consequences of any given act or decision of men’. Are we really to believe that the naive and simple-minded rules which methodologists take as their guide are capable of accounting for such a ‘maze of interactions’? And is it not clear that successful participation in a process of this kind is possible only for the ruthless opportunist who is not tied to any particular philosophy and who Adopts whatever procedure seems to fit the occasion? (1975, pp. 17–18)

Jani Hakkarainen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the ontological form of tropes refuting douglas ehring s main argument against standard trope nominalism
    Philosophia, 2017
    Co-Authors: Jani Hakkarainen, Markku Keinanen
    Abstract:

    According to standard trope nominalism, there are simple tropes that do not have parts or multiply distinct aspects. Douglas Ehring’s Reductio Ad Absurdum against this standard view concludes that there are no simple tropes. In this paper, we provide a response to Ehring defending the standard view. Ehring’s argument may be refuted by (1) distinguishing the ontological form of tropes from their contribution to the ontological content of the world, and (2) construing tropes as having primitive identity. At the same time, standard trope nominalism is elaborated on by distinguishing between ontological form and content, for which there are also independent reasons.

  • The Ontological Form of Tropes - Refuting Douglas Ehring’s Main Argument against Standard Trope Nominalism
    Philosophia, 2017
    Co-Authors: Jani Hakkarainen, Markku Keinanen
    Abstract:

    According to standard trope nominalism, there are simple tropes that do not have parts or multiply distinct aspects. Douglas Ehring’s Reductio Ad Absurdum against this standard view concludes that there are no simple tropes. In this paper, we provide a response to Ehring defending the standard view. Ehring’s argument may be refuted by (1) distinguishing the ontological form of tropes from their contribution to the ontological content of the world, and (2) construing tropes as having primitive identity. At the same time, standard trope nominalism is elaborated on by distinguishing between ontological form and content, for which there are also independent reasons.

Eugene S Kryachko - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Peter T. Saunders - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Reductio Ad Absurdum
    Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2007
    Co-Authors: Peter T. Saunders
    Abstract:

    Most contemporary biologists believe that biological processes are essentially physical. Despite this, most of us do not accept that explanations in biology can be truly satisfactory only if they can be formulated in terms of the laws of physics. In Darwinian Reductionism, Alex Rosenberg dismisses this as illogical. He insists ‘that there is a full and complete explanation of every biological fact, state, event, process, trend or generalization, and that this explanation will cite only interactions of macromolecules to provide this explanation.’ If this were merely a statement of what is possible in principle, there would be no real disagreement with the majority view.