Aran Arslan

This paper is an extended version of my original paper, "Semantics through Reference to the Unknown," published in the Croatian Journal of Philosophy in 2017 (Arslan, A., 2017, 16, 381-392). The primary reason for presenting this extended version, rather than the published one, is that space restrictions in the journal prevented me from fully explicating certain aspects of Inan's distinction. These aspects are crucial for understanding the relationship between knowledge and meaning in specific contexts. To provide readers with a clearer understanding of Inan's notion of inostensibility and how I derive my conclusions from it, I have added passages and sentences that were omitted from the original publication. I extend my gratitude to İlhan İnan for his helpful discussions on the topic of this paper and to all participants of his "The Philosophy of Curiosity" reading group. Furthermore, I previously presented the ideas defended herein at the GRG talks of the LOGOS research group at the University of Barcelona in 2016. Therefore, I also thank the graduate members of LOGOS for their helpful comments, especially to Johannes Findl and Anton Alexandrov.

An often-cited convention for discovery-oriented behavioral science research states that the general relative seriousness of the antecedently accepted false positive error rate of α = 0.05 be mirrored by a false negative error rate of β = 0.20. In 1965, Jacob Cohen proposed this convention to decrease a β-error rate typically in vast excess of 0.20. Thereby, we argue, Cohen (unintentionally) contributed to the wide acceptance of strongly uneven error rates in behavioral science. Although Cohen’s convention can appear epistemically reasonable for an individual researcher, the comparatively low probability that published effect size estimates are replicable renders his convention unreasonable for an entire scientific field. Appreciating Cohen’s convention helps to understand why even error rates (α = β) are “non-conventional” in behavioral science today, and why Cohen’s explanatory reason for β = 0.20—that resource restrictions keep from collecting larger samples—can easily be mistaken for the justificatory reason it is not.

The problem of communication in de se thoughts is the problem of communication of first-person or self-locating thoughts across the speakers of a conversation. The problem mainly stems from the lack of a proper account of attitude and content — an account that is supposed to explain whether or how the context of linguistic utterances is related to the semantic content of a sentence, assertion and belief. In this paper, after introducing two new semantic items, namely, almost-impossible and almost-necessary propositions, that could be taken as theoretically primitive entities in the semantic framework I wish to draw, I propose an account of modified Lewisian-centered content and attitude based on the metaphysical framework of the Lewisian counterpart-theoretic semantics for quantified modal logic to the extent that the modification relies on those new semantic items. I then show that we can solve the problem by using our modified account.

The paper in general investigates Kant’s transcendental theory of moral psychology in its relation to Sellarsian characterization of origin of normativity with respect to the preconditions of a complete conception of humans and their actions. The complete conception of humans and their actions is a conception in which we are able to account for free human in general and for his free will in particular in accordance with the natural law. I argue that Sellars’ manifest and scientific images of a person on the one hand and Kant’s empirical and intelligible character on the other hand has similar accounts for acquiring the knowledge of the source of our normative assessments. In both it is considered that manifest or empirical conception of a person within nature in general fails to provide a deductive procedure from which one can derive the complete conception of a person as a free being in itself. I further argue that any set of procedure for identifying the source of normativity and of our normative assessments cannot be provided from an ontologically oriented perspective in which we aim at establishing a naturalistic model of normativity- a model where accurate descriptions and true explanations of causal relations in the world of appearances can allow us to make sense the blameworthiness of the moral agent as the normative force applied on his actions.

This thesis is a critique of Jaakko Hintikka’s reconstruction of Kantian intuition in logical and mathematical reasoning. I argue that Hintikka’s reconstruction of Kantian intuition in particular and his reconstruction of Kant's philosophy of mathematics in general fails to be successful in two ways: First, the logical formula which contains an instantiated term (henceforth, instantial term) that is introduced by the rule of existential instantiation in the ecthesis part of a proof of an argument is not even a proper singular proposition whose relation to its object is supposed to be immediate. It is not a proper singular proposition because its truth conditions are general, i.e., it makes a general statement about a class of individuals of the sort instantiated- a statement whose analysis is based on quantifiers. Second, I show that certain proofs in mathematics- those in the form of reductio ad absurdum- are not captured by Hintikka’s reconstruction of Kant’s philosophy of mathematics either.

In this paper, I dwell on a particular distinction introduced by Ilhan Inan—the distinction between ostensible and inostensible use of our language. The distinction applies to singular terms, such as proper names and definite descriptions, or to general terms like concepts and to the ways in which we refer to objects in the world by using such terms. Inan introduces the distinction primarily as an epistemic one but in his earlier writings (1997: 49) he leaves some room for it to have some semantic significance i.e., the view that in certain intensional de re contexts whether a term occurring in a sentence is ostensible or inostensible may have a bearing on the semantic content of the sentence. However, in his later writings e.g., The Philosophy of Curiosity, he appears to abandon his earlier thoughts regarding the semantic significance of his distinction. He says: “the ostensible/inostensible distinction is basically an epistemic one.... It is an epistemic distinction that has no semantic significance” (2012: 65). I argue that there are indeed such intensional contexts in which the distinction has some semantic significance, i.e., whether a term is ostensible or inostensible has in fact a bearing on what proposition is expressed by the sentence in which the term occurs.