What is the proper function of language?
In: Inquiry: an interdisciplinary journal of philosophy and the social sciences, S. 1-24
ISSN: 1502-3923
9 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Inquiry: an interdisciplinary journal of philosophy and the social sciences, S. 1-24
ISSN: 1502-3923
In: Synthese: an international journal for epistemology, methodology and philosophy of science, Band 201, Heft 2
ISSN: 1573-0964
AbstractThere are some names which cannot be spoken and others which cannot be written, at least on certain very natural ways of conceiving of them. Interestingly, this observation proves to be in tension with a wide range of views about what names are.Prima facie, this looks like a problem for predicativists.Ultima facie, it turns out to be equally problematic for Millians. For either sort of theorist, resolving this tension requires embracing a revisionary account of the metaphysics of names. Revisionary Millianism, I argue, offers some important advantages over its predicativist competitor.
In: Engaging philosophy
In: Oxford scholarship online
A dedicated collection of philosophical essays on the topic of lying. Interdisciplinary in approach, it explores how a better understanding of language can inform the study of knowledge, ethics, or politics. Written primarily for researchers and graduate students in philosophy, it is also accessible to readers from other disciplines
In: Synthese: an international journal for epistemology, methodology and philosophy of science, Band 193, Heft 9, S. 2815-2836
ISSN: 1573-0964
In: Inquiry: an interdisciplinary journal of philosophy and the social sciences, Band 65, Heft 4, S. 471-487
ISSN: 1502-3923
The term "fake news" ascended rapidly to prominence in 2016 and has become a fixture in academic and public discussions, as well as in political mud-slinging. In the flurry of discussion, the term has been applied so broadly as to threaten to render it meaningless. In an effort to rescue our ability to discuss—and combat—the underlying phenomenon that triggered the present use of the term, some philosophers have tried to characterize it more precisely. A common theme in this nascent philosophical discussion is that contemporary fake news is not a new kind of phenomenon, but just the latest iteration of a broader kind of phenomenon that has played out in different ways across the history of human information-dissemination technologies. While we agree with this, we argue that newer sorts of fake news reveal substantial flaws in earlier understandings of this notion. In particular, we argue that no deceptive intentions are necessary for fake news to arise; rather, fake news arises when stories which were not produced via standard journalistic practice are treated as though they had been. Importantly, this revisionary understanding of fake news allows us to accommodate and understand the way that fake news is plausibly generated and spread in a contemporary setting, as much by non-human actors as by ordinary human beings.
BASE
The term "fake news" ascended rapidly to prominence in 2016 and has become a fixture in academic and public discussions, as well as in political mud-slinging. In the flurry of discussion, the term has been applied so broadly as to threaten to render it meaningless. In an effort to rescue our ability to discuss—and combat—the underlying phenomenon that triggered the present use of the term, some philosophers have tried to characterize it more precisely. A common theme in this nascent philosophical discussion is that contemporary fake news is not a new kind of phenomenon, but just the latest iteration of a broader kind of phenomenon that has played out in different ways across the history of human information-dissemination technologies. While we agree with this, we argue that newer sorts of fake news reveal substantial flaws in earlier understandings of this notion. In particular, we argue that no deceptive intentions are necessary for fake news to arise; rather, fake news arises when stories which were not produced via standard journalistic practice are treated as though they had been. Importantly, this revisionary understanding of fake news allows us to accommodate and understand the way that fake news is plausibly generated and spread in a contemporary setting, as much by non-human actors as by ordinary human beings.
BASE
In: Pepp , J , Michaelson , E & Sterken , R K 2019 , ' What's New About Fake News? ' , Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy , vol. XVI , no. 2 , pp. 67-94 . https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v16i2.629
The term "fake news" ascended rapidly to prominence in 2016 and has become a fixture in academic and public discussions, as well as in political mud-slinging. In the flurry of discussion, the term has been applied so broadly as to threaten to render it meaningless. In an effort to rescue our ability to discuss—and combat—the underlying phenomenon that triggered the present use of the term, some philosophers have tried to characterize it more precisely. A common theme in this nascent philosophical discussion is that contemporary fake news is not a fundamentally new kind of thing, but merely the latest iteration of a phenomenon that has played out in different ways across the history of human information-dissemination technologies. While we agree with this, we argue that newer sorts of fake news reveal substantial flaws in extant understandings of this notion. In particular, we argue that no deceptive intentions are necessary for fake news to arise; rather, fake news arises when stories which were not produced via standard journalistic practice are treated as though they had been. Importantly, this revisionary understanding of fake news allows us to see that there is something very different about the new fake news: for stories to be treated as though they were produced by standard journalistic practice, an infrastructure of distribution is necessary. That infrastructure is now fundamentally different than it used to be, raising the possibility that successfully combating the new fake news will require our taking account of this shift.
BASE