Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Wittgenstein and the Cognitive Science of Religion: Interpreting Human Nature and the Mind.Robert Vinten (ed.) - 2023 - London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    Advancing our understanding of one of the most influential 20th-century philosophers, Robert Vinten brings together an international line up of scholars to consider the relevance of Ludwig Wittgenstein's ideas to the cognitive science of religion. Wittgenstein's claims ranged from the rejection of the idea that psychology is a 'young science' in comparison to physics to challenges to scientistic and intellectualist accounts of religion in the work of past anthropologists. Chapters explore whether these remarks about psychology and religion undermine the frameworks (...)
    $3.50 used   $110.99 new    View on Amazon.com
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The philosophical–anthropological foundations of Bennett and Hacker’s critique of neuroscience.Jasper van Buuren - 2015 - Continental Philosophy Review 49 (2):223-241.
    Bennett and Hacker criticize a number of neuroscientists and philosophers for attributing capacities which belong to the human being as a whole, like perceiving or deciding, to a “part” of the human being, viz. the brain. They call this type of mistake the “mereological fallacy”. Interestingly, the authors say that these capacities cannot be ascribed to the mind either. They reject not only materialistic monism but also Cartesian dualism, arguing that many predicates describing human life do not refer to physical (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•
  • Seven Misconceptions About the Mereological Fallacy: A Compilation for the Perplexed.Harry Smit & Peter M. S. Hacker - 2014 - Erkenntnis 79 (5):1077-1097.
    If someone commits the mereological fallacy, then he ascribes psychological predicates to parts of an animal that apply only to the (behaving) animal as a whole. This incoherence is not strictly speaking a fallacy, i.e. an invalid argument, since it is not an argument but an illicit predication. However, it leads to invalid inferences and arguments, and so can loosely be called a fallacy. However, discussions of this particular illicit predication, the mereological fallacy, show that it is often misunderstood. Many (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Cerebral Organoid Research Ethics and Pinning the Tail on the Donkey.Alex McKeown - 2023 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 32 (4):542-554.
    The risk of creating cerebral organoids/assembloids conscious enough to suffer is a recurrent concern in organoid research ethics. On one hand, we should, apparently, avoid discovering how to distinguish between organoids that it would be permissible (non-conscious) and impermissible (conscious) to use in research, since if successful we would create organoids that suffer. On the other, if we do not, the risk persists that research might inadvertently continue to cause organoids to suffer. Moreover, since modeling some brain disorders may require (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•
  • Discussion: Persons, higher animals and fatal semantic fractures.Rom Harré - 2013 - Philosophy 88 (4):607-615.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation