Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T18:12:50.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Objectivity and reliability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Justin Clarke-Doane
Justin Clarke-Doane*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
*
E-mail: Jc4345@columbia.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scanlon’s Being Realistic about Reasons is a beautiful book – sleek, sophisticated, and programmatic. One of its key aims is to demystify knowledge of normative and mathematical truths, realistically construed – i.e. construed, roughly, as being true relevantly independent of minds and languages, when interpreted at face-value. In this article, I develop an epistemological problem that Scanlon fails to explicitly address. I argue that his ‘metaphysical pluralism’ can be understood as a response to that problem. However, it resolves the problem only if it undercuts the objectivity of normative and mathematical inquiry.

Keywords

ScanlonobjectivitynormativerealismBenacerrafsafetysensensitivity
Type
Tim Scanlon's Being Realistic about Reasons; author meets critics
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 47 , Issue 6 , 2017 , pp. 841 - 855
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balaguer, Mark. 1995. “A Platonist Epistemology.” Synthese 103: 303–325. 10.1007/BF01089731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beall, J. C. 1999. “Prom Full Blooded Platonism to Really Full Blooded Platonism.” Philosophia Mathematica 7: 322–325. 10.1093/philmat/7.3.322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedke, Matthew. 2009. “Intuitive Non-Naturalism Meets Cosmic Coincidence.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 90: 188–209. 10.1111/papq.2009.90.issue-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedke, Matthew. 2014. “No Coincidence?” In Vol. 9 of Oxford Studies in Metaethics, edited by Shafer-Landau, Russ. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benacerraf, Paul. 1973. “Mathematical Truth.” The Journal of Philosophy 70: 661–679. 10.2307/2025075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boolos, George. 1999. “Must We Believe in Set Theory?” Logic, Logic, and Logic, edited by Jeffrey, Richard, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chihara, Charles. 1990. Constructability and Mathematical Existence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke-Doane, Justin. 2012a. “Morality and Mathematics: The Evolutionary Challenge.” Ethics 122: 313–340. 10.1086/663231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke-Doane, Justin. 2012b. “Response to Braddock, Mogensen and Sinnott-Armstrong.” Ethics at PEA Soup. http://peasoup.typepad.com/peasoup/2012/03/ethics-discussions-at-pea-soup-justin-clarke-doanesmorality-and-mathematics-the-evolutionary-challe-1.html.Google Scholar
Clarke-Doane, Justin. 2015. “Justification and Explanation in Mathematics and Morality.” In Vol. 10 of Oxford Studies in Metaethics, edited by Shafer-Landau, Russ. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke-Doane, Justin. 2016. “Debunking and Dispensability.” In Explanation in Ethics and Mathematics: Debunking and Dispensability, edited by Sinclair, Neil and Leibowitz, Uri. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke-Doane, Justin. 2017. “What is the Benacerraf Problem?” In New Perspectives on the Philosophy of Paul Benacerraf: Truth, Objects, Infinity, edited by Pataut, Fabrice. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Clarke-Doane, Justin. forthcoming-a. “Modal Objectivity”. Noûs.Google Scholar
Clarke-Doane, Justin. forthcoming-b. “Set-Theoretic Pluralism and the Benacerraf Problem.”Google Scholar
Feferman, Solomon. 2000. “Does Mathematics Need New Axioms?” Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 6: 401–446. 10.2307/420965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enoch, David and McPherson, Tristram. xxxx. “What Do You Mean “This Isn’t the Question”?”Google Scholar
Field, Hartry. 1989. Realism, Mathematics, and Modality. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Field, Hartry. 1991. “Metalogic and Modality.” Philosophical Studies 62: 1–22. 10.1007/BF00646253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, Hartry. 1998. “Mathematical Objectivity and Mathematical Objects.” In Contemporary Readings in the Foundations of Metaphysics, edited by Laurence, S. and Macdonald, C., 387–403. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Field, Hartry. 2005. “Recent Debates about the A Priori.” In Vol. 1 of Oxford Studies in Epistemology, edited by Gendler, T. S. and Hawthorne, J., 69–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gödel, Kurt. 1947. “What is Cantor’s Continuum Problem?” In Philosophy of Mathematics, edited by Benacerraf, P. and Putnam, H.. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin. 1967. “A Causal Theory of Knowing.” The Journal of Philosophy 64: 357–372. 10.2307/2024268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamkins, Joel David. 2012. “The Set-theoretic Multiverse.” The Review of Symbolic Logic 5: 416–449. 10.1017/S1755020311000359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, Gilbert, and Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1996. Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hellman, Geoffrey. 1989. Mathematics Without Numbers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Joyce, Richard. 2001. The Myth of Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511487101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, Richard. 2008. “Preis of The Evolution of Morality.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 77: 213–218. 10.1111/phpr.2008.77.issue-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koellner, Peter. 2013. “Hamkins on the Multiverse.”Google Scholar
Linsky, Bernard, and Zalta, Edward. 1995. “Naturalized Platonism Versus Platonized Naturalism.” Journal of Philosophy 92: 525–555. 10.2307/2940786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 2012. “What is the Source of Our Knowledge of Modal Truths?” Mind 121: 919–950. 10.1093/mind/fzs122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, J. L. 1977. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Martin, Tony. 1976. “Hilbert’s First Problem: The Continuum Hypothesis.” In Vol. 28 of Mathematical Developments Arising from Hilbert Problems (Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics), edited by Browder, Felix. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
Potter, Michael. 2004. Set Theory and its Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199269730.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, Duncan. 2008. “Safety-Based Epistemology: Whither Now?” Journal of Philosophical Research 34: 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” Philosophical Review 60: 40–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, Michael. 1986. Taking Darwin Seriously. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. 2014. Being Realistic About Reasons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schechter, Joshua. 2010. “The Reliability Challenge and the Epistemology of Logic.” Philosophical Perspectives 24: 437–464. 10.1111/phpe.2011.24.issue-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, Ted. 2011. Writing the Book of the World. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697908.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. 2006. Moral Skepticisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/0195187725.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Street, Sharon. 2008. “Reply to Copp: Naturalism, Normativity, and the Varieties of Realism Worth Worrying About.” Philosophical Issues 18: 207–228. 10.1111/phis.2008.18.issue-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturgeon, Nicholas. 1985. “Moral Explanations.” In Morality, Reason, and Truth: New Essays on the Foundations of Ethics, edited by Copp, D. and Zimmerman, D., 49–78. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. Forthcoming. “Counterpossibles.” Topoi.Google Scholar