Moral motivation: internalism Normative ethics: deontology Perceptual experience: representationalism Personal identity: psychological view Politics: egalitarianism Proper names: Millian Teletransporter: survival Time: B-theory Trolley problem: switch Truth: correspondence Zombies: conceivable but not metaphysically possible Yes, some of the descriptions might not mean that much at first glance. Google is your friend! Pingback: What Do Philosophers Believe?
Gordon's shares. But, oh noes! To paraphrase, fuzzy and unsubstantiated thoughts often annoy me, particularly when I have to do the ferreting out of them myself; in which case the following would apply with justice and force:.
This struck me as a fascinating poll, if somewhat difficult to interpret given our lack of access to the specific question wordings. And lest you accuse me of argumentum ad auctoritatem, in cases where some sizable group of PhD-obtaining professionals think about something complex with a great deal more seriousness than I, a cursorily-informed internet-commentator, ever will…well, I tend to defer to them.
See also: climate scientists. Googling around will help you find explanations of a lot of the questions above. See here. The original poll had different responses per question, not just Qualia theory is actually in some ways a very reductionist view. Another guy in the profession argues that people , himself included, don't exist. I believe that ordinary material objects are 4-dimensional aggregates of temporal parts. We don't just pull these theses out of bodily orifices.
We have good, though not compelling, arguments for them. Mathematicians believe some odd things too, about the existence of abstract structures for example, and so do economists — who are at a disadvantage relative to philosophers and mathematicians because their doctrines are vulnerable to empirical falsification. Metaphysics, in any case, is controversial. There is no consensus about the existence or non-existence of possible worlds, Platonic forms, abstract structures, real essences — or God.
Some philosophers — not most but a significant minority, including members of the Society of Christian Philosophers — believe in God. Gibbon's claim that "all religions … are false to philosophers" is, at best, a gross exaggeration. Claims about the existence and nature of God are, rather, controversial to philosophers, including Christian philosophers.
That is to say, we recognise them as propositions about which reasonable, informed people may disagree. There are, of course, uncontroversially false claims, including propositions that some people regard as religious doctrine, which no reasonable, informed person believes.
I don't know any philosophers who prefer Affirming the Consequent to Modus Ponens. Students who do, get marked down on logic exams. I also don't know any philosophers, Christian or otherwise, who reject Darwin's theory of evolution, or believe that the world was created 10, years ago and that man walked with dinosaurs. The Davids distributed their questionnaire to 1, philosophers at 99 of the world's "leading departments of philosophy" in this case, their target group comprised predominantly Ph.
The questionnaire consisted of a background survey, 30 multiple choice questions, and a metasurvey that asked philosphers to predict how their colleagues would weigh in.
A little under half of the target faculty group completed the survey. Here are their responses:. A priori knowledge: yes Abstract objects: Platonism Aesthetic value: objective Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes External world: non-skeptical realism Free will: compatibilism God: atheism Knowledge claims: contextualism Knowledge: empiricism Laws of nature: non-Humean Logic: classical Mental content: externalism Meta-ethics: moral realism
0コメント