Andrew Cullison

Here’s a fun case. I was walking around the Science Museum in Buffalo with Simon yesterday, and I came across this odd passage in the dinosaur exhibit. Here is a picture of it, but I’ll type out the passage so you don’t have to click away. Triceratops, the Fighter Paleontologists believe that Triceratops used its [...]

Filed under: epistemology, philosophy, philosophy of language by Andrew Cullison
7 Comments »

I just posted a new video over at Young Philosophers. It’s Kevin Timpe’s research talk - “Truthmaking and Sourcehood” (link to video) I’ll post Timpe’s introductory level talk soon. We also had Nick Treanor and Helen Frowe deliver talks as part of the series. I’ll be posting their videos soon.

Filed under: metaphysics by Andrew Cullison
No Comments »

As I noted, we’re back from our vacation, but I want to quickly post a worry about Subject Sensitive Invariantism before I crash.

Filed under: epistemology, philosophy by Andrew Cullison
3 Comments »

I’ve been thinking more about the possible reply that Stanley/Hawthorne types (hereafter SSIers) might offer in response to an objection to SSI that I presented. Here is the original objection, and here is the possible reply that an SSIer might offer.

Filed under: philosophy of language by Andrew Cullison
3 Comments »

In the last post, I presented an objection to one of the main motivations for Subject Sensitive Invariantism (here). There is an obvious difference between the Guard Dog and Contractor cases on the one hand and Stanley’s cases on the other.

Filed under: epistemology, philosophy, philosophy of language by Andrew Cullison
2 Comments »

Consider the following two cases Guard Dog Case Bob’s mom is worried about burglars. She tells him she needs a dog (but not that it’s to scare away burglars). Bob goes out and gets her a tea cup poodle. She laughs at him and says, “You don’t understand. I’m worried about burglars. That’s not a [...]

Filed under: epistemology, philosophy, philosophy of language by Andrew Cullison
5 Comments »

So let’s talk about where I was headed with those last three posts on linguistic appropriateness. We had four cases of assertion. I’ll give a quick summary of each with links to the original post.

Filed under: epistemology, philosophy, philosophy of language by Andrew Cullison
4 Comments »

Confession time. I don’t have a good grasp as to what linguistic appropriateness is. But in so far as I do, I’m starting to get interested in cases where it seems intuitive that the person has done something linguistically inappropriate. In the long run, I’m interested in how the cases might inform some debates in [...]

Filed under: epistemology, philosophy, philosophy of language by Andrew Cullison
7 Comments »

In this previous post, I briefly outlined how epistemologists sometimes take linguistic appropriateness into account. Let’s grant the judgements about appropriateness in George’s case from that post. In this post, let’s consider some more cases.

Filed under: epistemology, philosophy, philosophy of language by Andrew Cullison
1 Comment »

In this post, I want to illustrate a methodological assumption that is sometimes made in epistemology.The idea is that facts about the linguistic appropriateness/inappropriateness of an assertion can count as evidence for or against an epistemic theory Here’s an example as to how someone might make use of this assumption.

Filed under: epistemology, philosophy, philosophy of language by Andrew Cullison
No Comments »