-
33Systems of measurementRatio 18 (2). 2005.Wittgenstein and Kripke disagree about the status of the proposition: the Standard Metre is one metre long. Wittgenstein believes it is necessary. Kripke argues that it is contingent. Kripke's argument depends crucially on a certain sort of thought‐experiment with which we are invited to test our intuitions about what is and isn’t necessary. In this paper I argue that, while Kripke's conclusion is strictly correct, nevertheless similar Kripke‐style thought experiments indicate that the metric sy…Read more
-
106Loar's defence of physicalismRatio 17 (1): 60-67. 2004.Brian Loar believes he has refuted all those antiphysicalist arguments that take as their point of departure observations about what is or isn't conceivable. I argue that there remains an important, popular and plausible-looking form of conceivability argument that Loar has entirely overlooked. Though he may not have realized it, Saul Kripke presents, or comes close to presenting, two fundamentally different forms of conceivability argument. I distinguish the two arguments and point out that whi…Read more
-
629The evil-god challengeReligious Studies 46 (3). 2010.This paper develops a challenge to theism. The challenge is to explain why the hypothesis that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient and all-good god should be considered significantly more reasonable than the hypothesis that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient and all-evil god. Theists typically dismiss the evil-god hypothesis out of hand because of the problem of good–there is surely too much good in the world for it to be the creation of such a being. But then why doesn't the problem of e…Read more
-
29other thinkers on any topic broadly related either to philosophy or to the development of thinking skills. It is anticipated that most contributors..
-
54Plantinga's belief-cum-desire argument refutedReligious Studies 47 (2): 245-256. 2011.In Warrant and Proper Function, Alvin Plantinga develops an argument designed to show that naturalism is self-defeating. One component of this larger argument is what I call Plantinga's belief-cum-desire argument, which is intended to establish something more specific: that if the content of our beliefs does causally effect behaviour (that is to say, semantic content is not epiphenomenal), and if naturalism and current evolutionary doctrine are correct, then the probability that we possess relia…Read more
-
12Thinking tools: The genetic fallacy: Law Thinking toolsThink 5 (13): 23-24. 2006.Thinking Tools is a regular feature that introduces tips and pointers on thinking clearly and rigorously.
-
67Thinking tools: Suppressed evidence: Law thinking toolsThink 7 (20): 105-105. 2008.Thinking tools is a regular feature that offers tips and pointers on thinking clearly and rigorously.
-
37Thinking tools 3: Flying saucers and open minds: Law Thinking toolsThink 1 (3): 65-68. 2003.Thinking Tools is a regular feature that introduces pointers on thinking clearly and rigorously. Here I tell a cautionary tale about flying saucers and take a brief look at the virtues of ‘open-mindedness’.