代写范文

留学资讯

写作技巧

论文代写专题

服务承诺

资金托管
原创保证
实力保障
24小时客服
使命必达

51Due提供Essay,Paper,Report,Assignment等学科作业的代写与辅导,同时涵盖Personal Statement,转学申请等留学文书代写。

51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标

私人订制你的未来职场 世界名企,高端行业岗位等 在新的起点上实现更高水平的发展

积累工作经验
多元化文化交流
专业实操技能
建立人际资源圈

留学生作业代写:Causal naturalism

2017-08-31 来源: 51due教员组 类别: 更多范文

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的assignment代写范文- Causal naturalism,供大家参考学习,这篇论文讨论了因果自然主义。爱利亚学派是古希腊早期的理性主义学派,它最早提出感性与理性的对立,并创制了辩证法。该学派认为感官刺激给人们提供的知识是不确定、不真实的,因此他倡导用理智来解决纷争的辩论。而关于真理的哲学就是运用理智思索“存在”的理性哲学。爱利亚学派关于“何物存在”的原则可以概述为因果自然主义。

Causal naturalism,因果自然主义,assignment代写,paper代写,留学生作业代写

Combing the principle of Elia school, the origin of causal naturalism is proved, and the essence of the principle of causality verification for discriminating entity exists. This paper analyzes the two kinds of argumentation of the principle, reveals the dilemma of causal naturalism, and finally points out that the thought of solving the dilemma leads to Quine's naturalistic theory, which plays an important role in the study of naturalism.

Elia School is the early rationalism School of ancient Greece, it first proposed the opposite of sensibility and rationality, and created Dialectics. The school's representative, Parmenides, argues that sensory stimuli provide knowledge that is uncertain and untrue, so he advocates the use of reason to resolve dispute debates. The philosophy of truth is the rational philosophy that uses reason to ponder "existence". The principle of "what exists" in Elia School can be summarized as causal naturalism, and we explain the dilemma of causal naturalism and its significance by studying two arguments of the Elia school principle.

Elia School of thought that "existence" is a concept, the principle of Elia school or the meaning of causal naturalism is: an entity in order to get some of the Philosopher's ontological commitment must pass the causality of verification. This principle holds that only entities classified as causal forces can bring about changes in the world. This concept of verification is very important to contemporary ontology, it has both intuitive appeal and strong supporters, including Colin Cheyne.

The criteria proposed for distinguishing between real and imaginary entities are committed, as Keith Campbell said.

The research on the basis of the entity's judgments must be understood as a study of what we consider to be the basis of a real judgment; That is, it does not need or may not be a conclusive sign;

Most commentators believe that causal validity is a sufficient condition for an entity. However, the principles of the Elia school are in trouble: without some ad hoc defence, the principle cannot provide an intuitive explanation for some uncontroversial examples. We will demonstrate from two aspects whether causal validity is a sufficient condition of entity reality.

The original idea of a causal standard is that all the real beings we intuitively believe are involved in the causal process, and that what we intuitively think is untrue is not involved in the cause and effect process. Inspired by this, the principle of the Elia school is a inductive assumption of the way the world works. People observe the undisputed existence of things in the real world, such as tables and chairs, and find that they all have causal validity. Then we conclude that all entities have causal validity. Such a causal standard seems to be purely descriptive ―― it lacks a normative commitment to the standard of power. However, this shortcoming is easy to resort to naturalism to correct, and naturalism does raise a lot of normative propositions about what we should believe. For example, if all the evidence indicates that all entities have causal validity, naturalism commands us to believe that all entities have causal validity. Any kind of naturalism needs a normative proposition from a purely descriptive proposition.

The refutation of the argument argues that there are many other properties that entities lack. For example, there is a view that entities are distributed in time and space, and that Ellis and Feld have stricter causal criteria that require causal effects or spacetime distributions. Similarly, the nature of the existence of the stationary mass can also be used as a symbol for dividing reality. Thus, the inductive argument will depend on how to choose a collection of real beings. If you choose to be careful about the members of a collection and only recognize solids that are visible to the naked eye, you may conclude that all real beings are colored. Therefore, causal validity cannot be a sufficient condition for the existence of an entity.

Under normal circumstances, it is natural to think that you can gain any knowledge of the real existence. Because it is because of the causal validity of an entity that it is recognized, other attributes do not compel people to perceive it. Therefore, the epistemological approach can be regarded as the main cause of the Elia school principle, not the inductive argument. Or the inductive argument needs to be supplemented, and the cognitive argumentation discussed below can supplement the inductive argument.

Cognitive considerations may be the most common cause of Elia school principles. The argument holds that even entities with causal invalidity exist and there is no reason to believe that they exist because their causal invalidity will ensure that they do not interact with us in a causal relationship.

However, since the principle of the school of Elijah depends on how we formulate it, it needs to exist or be causally valid or to be causal and effective with human beings, then there is a flaw in this cause. The latter is too human-centric so it is not worth discussing that humans should believe that there are stars and planets beyond their own light cones, although they do not interact with us in cause and effect. Refusing to acknowledge the existence of such entities actually means that the Earth is the center of the universe. So the idea of "causal validity" is worth discussing, from this point of view, the epistemological motivations are completely ineffective, because there may be a lot of perfectly logical real presence involved in the causal network, but because they do not interact with us, they are subject to the same cognitive impairment as the objects of causal invalidity. The stars, planets and other things outside our light cones are the best examples. That is, the set of entities that may exist for cognitive problems forms a subset of the appropriate set of causal validity entities.

In fact, the principles of the Elia school, inspired by cognitive problems, seem to suffer the same obsession with causal knowledge theory. In particular, we have no reason to believe that the future object, or even the universal experience that has been gained, may be problematic. Colin Cheyne puts forward a cognitive argument for a causal standard motive to overcome these problems.

Scientists are primarily based on evidence of scientific practice to confirm the existence of a new entity. For example the discovery of germanium elements. In 1871, the element did not cause a causal contact, in fact, until 1887 Winkler separated the metal to bring about causal contact. However, many of its chemical properties are known because there are "vacancies" in the periodic table of Mendeleev that correspond to the position of the germanium. Chen claims.

Before the 1887, Mendeleev believed that the germanium element existed, although the belief was true, it would not be regarded as cognitive. It can only be a lucky guess, unless the germanium atom participates in an event that, in an appropriate way, causes its discovery.

If Mendeleev had believed in the existence of germanium before 1887, it would not have been considered a cognitive one, as if "a lucky guess" was harsh. After all, it is not that there is no reason to believe that germanium exists, and there is reason to believe that something should fill the gaps in the periodic table of elements. This is different from the lottery's fluke guess of the number. Before 1887, at least Mendeleev had reason to believe that the germanium element existed. If this is accepted, then this example seems to be a counter example of a cognitive argument, because Mendeleev believes that a novel material exists that does not conform to the causal contact required by the principle.

It is clear that recourse to causal knowledge theory, because of all known difficulties, is not the right way to justify the causal relationship of ontological commitment. On the one hand, the principle of Elia school, once proved to be missing too many undisputed real existence, and secondly, even if some people accept the theory of causal knowledge, there is no reason to think that such acceptance means that causality is necessary for confirming existence, just as the discovery of germanium element. The policy of the Chen entity class does not confirm the principle of the Elia school.

Although the principle of Elia school is not tenable, it still has its positive value and significance. The inductive argument, because of the lack of proof, naturally leads to cognitive considerations. Neither of the two arguments confirms the causal naturalism. In particular, the adverse consequences of causal naturalism can be seen in the counter example, which excludes the existence of solid germanium prior to 1887, and also excludes the existence of stars and planets outside our light cones.

By considering the shortcomings of these two arguments, it can be concluded that recourse to some "satisfactory" principle could be overcome, thus resolving the contradictions in all the counter cases. According to the principle of "perfection", we can also be included in our ontology by the entities of stars and planets outside the cone of light. For reasons of symmetry, or for theoretical virtues, the principle of "completeness" allows the existence of stars and planets outside their own light cones. It is assumed that our own astronomical theories of stars and planets exist better than the theory of control that does not assume such entities. Therefore, the use of this "perfect" principle will effectively encompass the principle of the ―― causal validity entity will enter our ontology, because our scientific theory needs them. Because it avoids the obvious traps in the Elia school principle argumentation, this principle is more attractive than the Elia school principle, although the Elia school principle is more intuitive. That is, the principle of the Elia school may be a good ontological "rule of thumb", but it will not be the final arbiter of the entity's existence.

The "consummation principle" is similar to Quine's ontological problem. In considering the problem of the Elia school principle and how to correct them, it will naturally transition to the indispensable argument of Quine, that is, to give ontological commitment only to the entity that is indispensable to the best scientific theory in existence. This does not mean, of course, that Quine is the only way to avoid these difficulties, but it shows at least that Quine's position is better able to solve the difficult task of which entities are allowed to enter our ontology.

Quine believes that when people seek the ontological commitment of a theory or set of theories, they are actually talking about what exists according to the theory. What this has to do with the factual dimension is two completely different concepts. "Ontological commitment" is a normative existence, but not descriptive of what exists, Quine because there is no background language to talk about the allegation and it is meaningless, all really have a background framework for the foundation. From this, we can see that Quine's standpoint of realism is to make ontological commitment from the angle of analytic philosophy and to discuss ontology through the framework of language. The ontological commitment of Quine is to deal with the ontological problem with the pragmatism of experiment and tolerance, which embodies the relativity of ontology. He thought that ontology should be the same as scientific theory, to be convenient and useful as a standard, to turn ontology into the problem of cognition, so that ontology can enter our natural language and scientific theory and become part of experience and science. In the whole philosophy of Quine, he paid attention to the importance of science to the objective world, at the same time expounded the significance and value of philosophy, with the ontological commitment as a bridge linking science and philosophy, Quine's argument, if not the best way to solve the ontology problem, is at least a very reasonable method.

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明:原创assignment代写范文源自编辑创作,未经官方许可,网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为,未经同意的情况下,51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有assignment代写、essay代写、paper代写服务。

51due为留学生提供最好的assignment代写服务,亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多assignment代写范文 提供留学生作业代写服务,详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ:800020041。-ZR

上一篇:美国作业代写:The Heritage Sites 下一篇:留学生作业代写:Material management of