Philosophical Studies 105 (3):211-236 (2001)
AbstractIn this paper I distinguish three senses of could turn out/couldhave turned out in an attempt to elucidate how each is connected tothe notion of discovery and how each determines that a statement ofthe form `X could turn out P' (`X could have turned out P') is true.I argue that the actuality-oriented sense of could turn outbest captures what we ordinarily mean when we use could turnout or could have turned out in a nonevidential sense.
Similar books and articles
Turn, Turn, Turn: Reply to Cotkin.Lewis Perry - 2008 - Journal of the History of Ideas 69 (2):333-337.
Past the Linguistic Turn?Timothy Williamson - 2004 - In Brian Leiter (ed.), The Future for Philosophy. Clarendon Press.
The Empirical Turn in the Philosophy of Technology.Peter Kroes & Anthonie Meijers (eds.) - 2001 - Jai.
What is Wrong with the Indeterminacy of Language-Attribution?Arpy Khatchirian - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 146 (2):197 - 221.
God or the Subject? Karl Barth's Critique of the “Turn to the Subject”.ProfDr Dirk-Martin Grube - 2008 - Neue Zeitschrift für Systematicsche Theologie Und Religionsphilosophie 49 (3).
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
No citations found.
References found in this work
The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory.David J. Chalmers - 1996 - Oxford University Press.