Product Description For millennia, “from Aristotle to almost yesterday,” the great problems of philosophy have all been about people: questions of epistemology and philosophy of mind have concerned human capacities and limitations. Still, say the editors of Thinking about Android Epistemology, there should be theories about other sorts of minds, other ways that physical systems can be organized to produce knowledge and competence. The emergence of artificial intelligence in mid-twentie… More >>
Speciation explains the creation of new species. How does it happen? DNA is passed from one generation to the next, how and when does a change in DNA occur?
Product Description This work offers a provocative new historical and systematic interpretation of the epistemological doctrines of three twentieth-century giants: Husserl, Heidegger, and Merleau-Ponty. Pietersma argues that these three philosophers, while connected by their phenomenological doctrines, have underappreciated and interestingly-linked views on the theory of knowledge…. More >>
Product Description Out of the ferment of recent debates about the intellectual virtues, Roberts and Wood have developed an approach they call “regulative epistemology.” This is partly a return to classical and medieval traditions, partly in the spirit of Locke’s and Descartes’s concern for intellectual formation, partly an exploration of connections between epistemology and ethics, and partly an approach that has never been tried before.
the 4 points I make in this video 1: Tf00t commits a genetic fallacy when arguing that moral values are explained by social evolution 2: Tf00t confuses moral epistemology with moral ontology 3: Tf00t fails to understand even the basic epistemology when trying to use moral disagreements as a defeater for the objectivity of moral values. Furthermore, He fails to catch the fact that everyone agrees on certain foundational ethical truths like “it is wrong to kill someone without proper cause”. But these truths create gray areas, which we use ethics to sort out 4: Finally, Tf00t proposes a utilitarian system of ethics. Besides the fact that he only asserts utilitarianism (he never once gives an actual argument for it), what makes your system better than anyone else’s if moral values are subjective and relative? What makes your system better than, say, Osama Bin-Laden? You may say that your system would incur less suffering, but, assuming moral non-ontology (non-existence, nonbeing), what makes suffering actually wrong? That being said, Tf00t, stay in the laboratory. You contribute so much more to science and society, but prove to be a detriment to science and quite possibly to society outside the lab when venturing way outside your field.
Product Description This set of original essays by some of the most distinguished names in philosophy of science explores a range of diverse issues at the intersection of biology and epistemology. The studies, taken together, help to develop and deepen our understanding of how biology works and what counts as warranted knowledge and as legitimate approaches to the study of life. The volume will interest professionals and graduate students in biology and the history and philosophy of sc… More >>
