{"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}
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.