Deke Gould

Normativism is the view that logic provides rules for correct reasoning. Some influential critics of normativism, such as Gilbert Harman, claim that logical rules provide reasoners with bad or misleading standards. Others, such as Gillian Russell, claim that logic is a descriptive subject and thus cannot, given Hume’s law, provide rules for reasoning. We think these critics are mistaken. Our aim in this paper is to defend normativism by sketching an alternative way of thinking about the normative force of logical rules. On our view, logical rules are best characterized, in a broadly Rossian manner, as intellectual prima facie duties; i.e., they provide standards for evaluating reasoning and reasoners that are universal and authoritative, but not absolute. This position accommodates the inherent normativity of logic, contra Russell, while circumventing the challenges to normativism raised by Harman.

The goal of this thesis is two-fold. First, while the model concept frequently is mentioned in the philosophical literature on scientific knowledge, it rarely is addressed as a focus for methodology. My aim is to support the view that models are central to scientific practice, and that for this reason, the model concept deserves further attention in general philosophy of science. Second, I hold that since models are an important part of scientific inquiry, various philosophical puzzles arise as a consequence of an analysis of the model concept. In particular, I investigate the problem of constructivism about scientific models for a realist view of science, and I urge that although it may be tempting to adopt an anti-realist position, methodological considerations demand that one must be a realist about the model concept

Some futurists and philosophers have urged that recent developments in biotechnology promise advancements that challenge standard accepted views of human nature, the self, and ethical obligation. Additionally, some have urged that developments in artificial intelligence similarly raise interesting new challenges to our conceptions of the mind, morality, and the future direction for conscious entities generally. Some have even gone so far as to argue in defense of “artificial replacement,” which is the view that humanity should be prepared to “hand over the keys,” so to speak, to a new sort of intelligent collection of entities and that we should go extinct gracefully. These views suggest a new challenge to the anti‐natalist view that people should stop procreating: perhaps humanity is obligated to not allow itself to go extinct quite yet, at least until we have ensured that these next stages of intelligent entity have emerged. When we take into consideration some possibilities for entities with minds relevantly different from our own, we confront a challenge to the asymmetry argument that concerns human‐like minds. Call this the “future minds challenge to anti‐natalism.” I will examine some assumptions that underlie such a challenge, and I will argue that some famous articulations of the anti‐natalist stance should be revised in light of such technological advancements.

In this dissertation, I defend a view that combines an analytic conception of a priori knowledge with a version of reliabilist platonism. Roughly put, the analytic theory is the view that our a priori knowledge can be explained by our grasp of analytic truths. Platonism is the view that there are abstract objects and those objects are partly responsible for some of our knowledge. My primary goal is to show that the hybrid account I develop solves central problems that arise for the analytic view and platonism on their own. One well-known difficulty facing platonism is the following epistemological concern: given that abstracta are causally inefficacious, it is unclear how we can ever come to know anything about them. I argue that platonism on its own cannot adequately address this problem. Likewise, there is the following serious difficulty for the analytic theory: given the central role of implicit definitions for the analytic theory, if there are good reasons to doubt the unqualified success of such stipulations, it seems that the analytic theory fails to explain our a priori knowledge. I also show that this is a serious problem for the analytic theory. However, I show how a combination of the analytic theory and platonism can address both sets of difficulties: one view makes up for the shortcomings of the other. On the one hand, reliabilist platonism helps explain the success of the relevant stipulations; on the other hand, the analytic theory helps show why the causal inefficacy of abstracta is not a problem for our a priori knowledge.