{"title":"如何(不)反对野蛮的原教旨主义","authors":"Julio De Rizzo","doi":"10.1111/1746-8361.12277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper is a response to McKenzie (2017). I argue that the case she presents is not a genuine counterexample to the thesis she labels <i>Brute Fundamentalism</i>. My response consists of two main points. First, that the support she presents for considering her case a <i>metaphysical</i> explanation is misguided. Second, that there are principled reasons for doubting that partial explanations in Hempel's sense, of which her case is an instance, are genuinely explanatory in the first place. Thus McKenzie's attack on <i>Brute Fundamentalism</i> fails.</p>","PeriodicalId":46676,"journal":{"name":"DIALECTICA","volume":"73 3","pages":"395-410"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1746-8361.12277","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How (Not) to Argue Against Brute Fundamentalism\",\"authors\":\"Julio De Rizzo\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1746-8361.12277\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This paper is a response to McKenzie (2017). I argue that the case she presents is not a genuine counterexample to the thesis she labels <i>Brute Fundamentalism</i>. My response consists of two main points. First, that the support she presents for considering her case a <i>metaphysical</i> explanation is misguided. Second, that there are principled reasons for doubting that partial explanations in Hempel's sense, of which her case is an instance, are genuinely explanatory in the first place. Thus McKenzie's attack on <i>Brute Fundamentalism</i> fails.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46676,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"DIALECTICA\",\"volume\":\"73 3\",\"pages\":\"395-410\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1746-8361.12277\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"DIALECTICA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1746-8361.12277\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DIALECTICA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1746-8361.12277","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper is a response to McKenzie (2017). I argue that the case she presents is not a genuine counterexample to the thesis she labels Brute Fundamentalism. My response consists of two main points. First, that the support she presents for considering her case a metaphysical explanation is misguided. Second, that there are principled reasons for doubting that partial explanations in Hempel's sense, of which her case is an instance, are genuinely explanatory in the first place. Thus McKenzie's attack on Brute Fundamentalism fails.
期刊介绍：
Dialectica publishes first-rate articles predominantly in theoretical and systematic philosophy. It is edited in Switzerland and has a focus on analytical philosophy undertaken on the continent. Continuing the work of its founding members, dialectica seeks a better understanding of the mutual support between science and philosophy that both disciplines need and enjoy in their common search for understanding.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
