Response to LÖhr: Why We Still Need a New Normativism

&
Philosophical Quarterly 73 (4):1067-1076 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Guido Löhr's recent article makes several insightful and productive suggestions about how to proceed with the empirical study of collective action. However, their critique of the conclusions drawn in Gomez-Lavin & Rachar (2022) is undermined by some issues with the interpretation of the debate and paper. This discussion article clears up those issues, presents new findings from experiments developed in response to Löhr's critiques, reflects on the role of experimental research in the development and refinement of philosophical theories, and adds to Löhr's suggestions about the path forward.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1093/pq/pqad047

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Recent Experimental Philosophy on Joint Action: Do We Need a New Normativism About Collective Action?Guido Löhr - 2022 - Philosophical Quarterly 72 (3):754-762.
Aristotelica Et Lulliana Magistro Doctissimo Charles H. Lohr Septuagesimum Annum Feliciter Agenti Dedicata.Fernando Domínguez Reboiras & Charles H. Lohr - 1995 - In Abbatia S. Petri Nijhoff.
A Sellarsian Approach to the Normativism-Antinormativism Controversy.Dionysis Christias - 2015 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 45 (2):143-175.
Why We Need a New Normativism about Collective Action.Matthew Rachar & Javier Gomez Lavin - 2022 - Philosophical Quarterly 72 (2):478-507.
Untersuchungen zum Hexateuchproblem, I Der Priesterkodex in der Genesis (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 38)Untersuchungen zum Hexateuchproblem, I Der Priesterkodex in der Genesis.Julian Morgenstern, D. Max Löhr & D. Max Lohr - 1926 - Journal of the American Oriental Society 46:82.
Norms and high-level cognition: Consequences, trends, and antidotes.Simon McNair & Aidan Feeney - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (5):260-261.
Against Content Normativity.Kathrin Glüer & Åsa Wikforss - 2009 - Mind 118 (469):31-70.
Overselling the case against normativism.Tim Fuller & Richard Samuels - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (5):255-255.
Are epistemic reasons normative?Benjamin Kiesewetter - 2021 - Noûs 56 (3):670-695.
A Critique of an Epistemic Intellectual Culture: Cartesianism, Normativism and Modern Crises.V. P. J. Arponen - 2016 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 46 (1):84-103.
Embodied cognition and abstract concepts: Do concept empiricists leave anything out?Guido Löhr - 2019 - Philosophical Psychology 32 (2):161-185.
Latent inhibition of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response: Summation tests for active inhibition as a function of number of CS preexposures.Paul R. Solomon, A. Craig Lohr & John W. Moore - 1974 - Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 4 (6):557-559.
Normative Reason, Primitiveness, and the Argument for Semantic Normativism.Joanna Klimczyk - 2015 - Etyka 50:73-90.
Factualism, Normativism and the Bounds of Normativity.Thomas M. Besch - 2011 - Dialogue 50 (2):347-365.
Hans Kelsen's Normativism.Carsten Heidemann - 2022 - Cambridge University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-04-24

Downloads
194 (#102,962)

6 months
131 (#28,679)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Javier Gomez-Lavin
Purdue University
Matthew Rachar
Freie Universität Berlin

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Normativity in joint action.Javier Gomez-Lavin & Matthew Rachar - 2019 - Mind and Language 34 (1):97-120.
The Confounding Question of Confounding Causes in Randomized Trials.Jonathan Fuller - 2019 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 70 (3):901-926.
Quasi-Psychologism about Collective Intention.Matthew Rachar - 2021 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 24 (2):475-488.

View all 6 references / Add more references