Search

Marion Godman's book, "The Epistemology and Morality of Human Kinds," explores the concept of human kinds as historical kinds. The book argues that certain categories of human classification can be understood as objectively real kinds, with shared features due to their shared causal lineages. Godman critiques alternative approaches to human kinds and develops the idea that viewing human kinds as historical kinds allows for common cause explanations and grounds multiple projectability. The book applies this historical kind account to genders, religions, and ethnicities, showing their normative significance. While the book has some flaws, it is an insightful contribution to the debates surrounding human kinds. [Extracted from the article]

In a recent article, Bernáth and Tőzsér (2021) defend what they call the Bias Argument, a new skeptical argument from expert peer disagreement. They argue that the best contrastive causal explanation for disagreement among leading experts in philosophy is that they adopt their positions in a biased way. But if the leading experts are biased, non-experts either are also biased or only avoid bias through epistemic inferiority. Recognizing this is expected to prompt one to decrease one's confidence in one's philosophical beliefs. This paper argues that some beliefs are immune to a key premise of the Bias Argument. To show this, the paper develops the concepts of self-favoring theories, decisive support, and standing-incommensurable disagreements. A plausible example of a selffavoring theory, dubbed Mere Reformed Protestantism, is sketched. Many disagreements over self-favoring theories and over beliefs decisively supported by self-favoring theories are shown to be standing-incommensurable. It is then argued that when non-experts are in standing-incommensurable disagreements with experts, the standards of assessing expertise are themselves controverted. This result undercuts the move in the Bias Argument from expert bias to nonexpert bias. Finally, a couple reservations about the role of self-favoring theories in philosophy are addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cornelius Van Til and Alvin Plantinga represent two strands of American Protestant philosophical thought influenced by Dutch neo-Calvinism. This paper compares and synthetizes their models of knowledge in non-Christians given the noetic effects of sin and non-Christian worldview commitments. The paper argues that Van Til's distinction between the partial realization of the antithesis in practice and its absolute nature in principle correlates with Plantinga's insistence on prima facie–warranted common-sense beliefs and their ultimate defeasibility given certain metaphysical commitments. Van Til endorsed more radical claims than Plantinga on epistemic defeat in non-Christian worldviews, the status of the sensus divinitatis , and conceptual accuracy in knowledge of the world. Finally, an approach to the use of evidence in apologetics is developed based on the proposed synthesis. This approach seeks to make more room for evidence than is generally recognized in Van Tilianism, while remaining consistent with the founder's principles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]