ORDINARY KINDS AND ONTOLOGICAL ANGST. REPLY TO DEMARTINI

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Manuscrito Pub Date : 2020-12-01 DOI:10.1590/0100-6045.2020.v43n4.mt
Mario Gómez-Torrente
{"title":"ORDINARY KINDS AND ONTOLOGICAL ANGST. REPLY TO DEMARTINI","authors":"Mario Gómez-Torrente","doi":"10.1590/0100-6045.2020.v43n4.mt","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": Thainá Demartini has criticized my view that ordinary natural kind terms refer to vague non-scientific kinds and defended the more traditional view that they refer to precise kinds discovered by science. In this note I reject Demartini’s worries as based on inadequate ontological scruples.","PeriodicalId":42903,"journal":{"name":"Manuscrito","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Manuscrito","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6045.2020.v43n4.mt","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

: Thainá Demartini has criticized my view that ordinary natural kind terms refer to vague non-scientific kinds and defended the more traditional view that they refer to precise kinds discovered by science. In this note I reject Demartini’s worries as based on inadequate ontological scruples.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
普通的种类和本体论的焦虑。对德马尔蒂尼的答复
泰恩·德马蒂尼批评了我的观点,即普通的自然种类术语指的是模糊的非科学种类,并为更传统的观点辩护,即它们指的是科学发现的精确种类。在本文中,我反对德马蒂尼基于不充分的本体论顾虑的担忧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Manuscrito
Manuscrito PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
32 weeks
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
Towards a process-based approach to consciousness and collapse in quantum mechanics “Believing at will is possible”−or is it? Some remarks on Peels’s “truth depends on belief” cases and voluntariness THE STATUS OF ARGUMENTS IN ABSTRACT ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS. A TABLEAUX METHOD ON THE ALLEGED ERROR OF FORMAL OBJECTIONS TO NORMATIVE ERROR THEORY Korsgaard's Expanded Regress Argument
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1