碎片化和粗粒度内容

Daniel Greco
{"title":"碎片化和粗粒度内容","authors":"Daniel Greco","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198850670.003.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter defends the possible worlds framework for modeling the contents of belief. Both the threats against which the chapter defends it—the problems of coarse grain—and the ‘fragmentationist’ response it offers are familiar. At least as a sociological matter, the fragmentationist response has been unpersuasive, likely because it can look like an ad hoc patch—an unmotivated epicycle aimed at saving a flailing theory from decisive refutation. The chapter offers two responses to this charge. First, the problems of coarse grain aren’t unique to the possible worlds framework and indeed arise for anyone who accepts certain very attractive views about the relationship between beliefs, desires, and action. Second, the fragmentationist response to these problems is in fact a special case of an independently motivated, ‘modest’ approach to model-building in philosophy.","PeriodicalId":149092,"journal":{"name":"The Fragmented Mind","volume":"71 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fragmentation and Coarse-Grained Content\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Greco\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198850670.003.0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter defends the possible worlds framework for modeling the contents of belief. Both the threats against which the chapter defends it—the problems of coarse grain—and the ‘fragmentationist’ response it offers are familiar. At least as a sociological matter, the fragmentationist response has been unpersuasive, likely because it can look like an ad hoc patch—an unmotivated epicycle aimed at saving a flailing theory from decisive refutation. The chapter offers two responses to this charge. First, the problems of coarse grain aren’t unique to the possible worlds framework and indeed arise for anyone who accepts certain very attractive views about the relationship between beliefs, desires, and action. Second, the fragmentationist response to these problems is in fact a special case of an independently motivated, ‘modest’ approach to model-building in philosophy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":149092,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Fragmented Mind\",\"volume\":\"71 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Fragmented Mind\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198850670.003.0003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Fragmented Mind","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198850670.003.0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本章为模拟信仰内容的可能世界框架进行辩护。这一章为之辩护的威胁——粗粮问题——和它所提供的“分裂主义”回应都是熟悉的。至少从社会学的角度来看,碎片主义的回应是缺乏说服力的,可能是因为它看起来像是一个临时的补丁——一个没有动机的循环,旨在从决定性的反驳中拯救一个摇摇欲坠的理论。本章对这一指控给出了两种回应。首先,粗粮的问题并不是可能世界框架所独有的,它确实会出现在任何接受某些关于信念,欲望和行为之间关系的非常有吸引力的观点的人身上。其次,碎片主义对这些问题的回应实际上是一种独立动机的、“适度”的哲学模型构建方法的特殊情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Fragmentation and Coarse-Grained Content
This chapter defends the possible worlds framework for modeling the contents of belief. Both the threats against which the chapter defends it—the problems of coarse grain—and the ‘fragmentationist’ response it offers are familiar. At least as a sociological matter, the fragmentationist response has been unpersuasive, likely because it can look like an ad hoc patch—an unmotivated epicycle aimed at saving a flailing theory from decisive refutation. The chapter offers two responses to this charge. First, the problems of coarse grain aren’t unique to the possible worlds framework and indeed arise for anyone who accepts certain very attractive views about the relationship between beliefs, desires, and action. Second, the fragmentationist response to these problems is in fact a special case of an independently motivated, ‘modest’ approach to model-building in philosophy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Pragmatic Metaphysics of Belief On the Availability of Presuppositions in Conversation Rationality in Fragmented Belief Systems Fragmentation and Singular Propositions Rational Agency and the Struggle to Believe What Your Reasons Dictate
×
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