Contingent Fact Research Articles

Are Mathematical Explanations Causal Explanations in Disguise?

AbstractThere is a major debate as to whether there are non-causal mathematical explanations of physical facts that show how the facts under question arise from a degree of mathematical necessity considered stronger than that of contingent causal laws. We focus on Marc Lange’s account of distinctively mathematical explanations to argue that purported mathematical explanations are essentially causal explanations in disguise and are no different from ordinary applications of mathematics. This is because these explanations work not by appealing to what the world must be like as a matter of mathematical necessity but by appealing to various contingent causal facts.

Franz Boas and the Primacy of Form

Abstract There is systematic epistemic asymmetry between different centers of art production: we know far more about some (e.g. fifteenth-century Italian paintings) than about others (e.g. fifteenth-century Inca textiles). As long as we are focusing on the social context of the artworks or the artist’s intention, this epistemic asymmetry remains, given that we have vastly more information about the social context of the artworks or the artist’s intention when it comes to ‘Western’ art—again, because of the historically contingent differences in record-keeping and the survival rate of such records. If we want to overcome the epistemic asymmetry between ‘Western’ and ‘Non-Western’ art, we need to look elsewhere. I will argue, using Franz Boas’s work, that we should look for formal features. In order to avoid the epistemic asymmetry that follows from the historically contingent fact that we have more information about some cultures than about others, we need to start our analysis with formal categories.

Robust ethical realism, necessary truths and the miracle of morality

Non-naturalists about the normative face the problem of providing a metaphysical explanation for the supervenience of the normative on the natural. Recently, Gideon Rosen has argued that non-naturalists can side-step this problem by rejecting strong supervenience and the view that normative truths are metaphysically necessary. Rosen proposes to take normative truths to be normatively necessary, where normative necessity is different from and irreducible to metaphysical necessity. I argue that if Rosen is right, that creates a deeper problem for robust ethical realism (the view that there are mind-independent, non-natural moral facts). According to robust ethical realism, it is a normative fact that persons are an especially valuable kind of being. But if Rosen is right, that is a metaphysically contingent fact. The existence of persons is also contingent. According to robust ethical realism, then, there is a striking match between what the normative facts happen to be and the kinds of beings that happen to exist. Persons could have failed to exist and they could have failed to be valuable, but it just so happens to be a fact about the natural world that they exist and a normative fact that they have value. Given that this match is accidental, it amounts to a miraculous coincidence. To the extent that commitment to unexplained coincidences counts against a view, robust ethical realism faces a problem.

Economic analyses of repugnant market transactions: a modest typology

AbstractEconomic accounts of repugnance concern two broad questions: the rationalisation of sentiments of repugnance (do emotional and visceral reactions of repugnance track valid reasons for not engaging in or condemning certain (trans)actions?) and institutional design (how to institute, regulate, or restrict markets in response to reasonable objections). If repugnance expresses valid practical reasons for regulating or limiting markets, our institutions should acknowledge and express these. If attitudes of repugnance are not rationalisable in the sense of instrumental or moral values, we should disregard or eventually counteract or reduce them. Focusing on a special case of repugnance, when commodification, i.e., the sale of goods or services for money meets societal disapproval, this paper identifies three characteristic ways to combine conceptual, empirical, and normative arguments and map repugnance into a disciplinary ‘epistemic frame’ of economics: repugnance as taste; repugnance as proxy for market failures or moral reasons; repugnance as hypocrisy or contingent cultural fact. Correspondingly, economists advise to (1) work around; (2) make sense of; and (3) explain away people's sentiments of repugnance.

Bias, norms, introspection, and the bias blind spot1

AbstractIn this paper, I sketch a general framework for theorizing about bias and bias attributions. According to the account, paradigmatic cases of bias involve systematic departures from genuine norms. I attempt to show that the account illuminates a number of important psychological phenomena, including: the fact that accusations of bias frequently inspire not only denials but also countercharges of bias (“you only think that I'm biased because you're biased!”); the fact that we tend to see ourselves as less biased than our peers (the so‐called ‘bias blind spot’); and the fact that we tend to see people who share our views as less biased than people who don't. I explore the circumstances in which we're committed to believing that those who disagree with us are not only mistaken but also biased simply because they disagree with us in the way that they do. In addition, the account also sheds light on another notorious and well‐documented psychological phenomenon: the fact that introspection is an unreliable way of detecting our biases. On the account that I offer, the unreliability of introspection for this purpose isn't a contingent fact that depends on the finer details of human psychology but rather holds of necessity: even God could not have made us creatures who reliably detect our own biases by way of introspection.

More on Why Contingent Facts Cannot Necessities Make: A Reply to Wildman

More on Why Contingent Facts Cannot Necessities Make: A Reply to Wildman

Wittgenstein on necessity: ‘Are you not really an idealist in disguise?’

Wittgenstein characterises ‘necessary truths’ as rules of representation that do not answer to reality. The invocation of rules of representation has led many to compare his work with Kant's. This comparison is illuminating, but it can also be misleading. Some go as far as casting Wittgenstein's later philosophy as a specie of transcendental idealism, an interpretation that continues to gather support despite scholars pointing to its limitations. To understand the temptation of this interpretation, attention must be paid to a distinction Bernard Williams (1981) makes, echoing Kant, between empirical and transcendental idealism. Williams claims that the move to transcendental idealism is an effort to block empirical idealism. The latter, in this context, amounts to a scepticism regarding necessity and a denial of its objectivity. To show what is wrong with the transcendental interpretation, it is important to challenge the mistaken presumption that Wittgenstein's philosophy would otherwise lead to empirical idealism. The fundamental mistake common to both attributions is that they misunderstand the relation that obtains between our rules of representation and the contingent facts that condition those rules of representation. Once this relation has been clarified, Wittgenstein's philosophy can be understood as providing a genuine alternative to realism and idealism.

The Magical Santayanan Groundwork for Metaphysical Coherentism

The Magical Santayanan Groundwork for Metaphysical Coherentism

Понятие контингентного в посттридентской схоластической философии

The author analyzes the methodology of working with contingent events and how the concept of contingent and other related concepts is conceptualized in post-Tridentine scholastic philosophy. In particular, the article examines the theory of moral modalities that emerged in the XVI–XVII centuries, describing knowledge about contingent and patterns of human behavior; the separation of physical and moral in the context of contingent reality produced by human will; as well as the concepts of probabilistic knowledge and the methodology of the sciences about contingent facts. Based on the analysis of the data of scholastic ideas and concepts, the author identifies the key characteristics of knowledge about the contingent and identifies the common core of approaches to the theorization of contingent events in post-Trident scholasticism.

Human Foreknowledge

AbstractI explore the motivation and logical consequences of the idea that we have some (limited) ability to know contingent facts about the future, even in presence of the assumption that the future is objectively unsettled or indeterminate. I start by formally characterizing skepticism about the future. This analysis nudges the anti‐skeptic towards the idea that if some propositions about the future are objectively indeterminate, then it may be indeterminate whether a suitably positioned agent knows them.

Intersectional Ecologies: Reimagining Anthropology and Environment

Drawing on the work of Black feminist scholars, this review suggests “intersectional ecologies” as a method for critically engaging anthropology's relationship with the environment across subfields, intellectual traditions, and authorial politics. Intersectional ecologies helps us trace how a broad coalition of scholars represents and accounts for the environment within shifting planetary arrangements of bodies, sites, practices, and technologies. Our basic argument in this article is that because the environment is a malleable and contingent social fact, it matters who is analyzing its formation and how they are analyzing it. To this end, the scholarship we review comes from a diverse array of authors. The three themes we have identified—materiality, knowledge, and subjectivity—are central to bringing this diverse scholarship into dialogue while putting into focus anthropology's uneven commitments to the environment as a concept.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason and Libertarianism: A Critique of Pruss

Alexander Pruss’s Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) states that every contingent true proposition has an explanation. Pruss thinks that he can plausibly maintain both his PSR and his account of libertarian free will. This is because his libertarianism has it that contingent true propositions reporting free choices are (virtually) self-explanatory. But I don’t think Pruss can plausibly maintain both his PSR and libertarianism without a rift occurring in one or the other. Similar to the old luck/randomness objection, I contend that Pruss’s libertarianism is susceptible to what I call “the inexplicability objection”, which attempts to show that agents’ free choices involve contingent brute facts. Pruss may be able to partially explain a proposition such that Jones freely chose A for reason R, but he cannot adequately explain a contrastive proposition such as that Jones freely chose A for R rather than B for R*. The result is that either PSR is too explanatorily permissive for libertarianism, or libertarianism is too explanatorily impermissive to satisfy PSR. After considering what I take to be Pruss’s best response to the inexplicability objection, I conclude that his attempt to reconcile PSR and libertarianism is unsuccessful.

The Function of Boundary Conditions in the Physical Sciences

Early philosophical accounts of explanation mistook the function of boundary conditions for that of contingent facts. I diagnose where this misunderstanding arose and establish that it persists. I disambiguate between two uses of the term “boundary conditions”? and argue that boundary conditions are explanatory via their roles as components of models. Using case studies from fluid mechanics and the physics of waves, I articulate four explanatory functions for boundary conditions in physics: specifying the scope of a model, enabling stable descriptions of phenomena in a model, generating descriptions of novel phenomena, and connecting models from differing theoretical backgrounds.

Continuity in Morality and Law

Abstract According to an influential and intuitively appealing argument (the Continuity Argument), (1) morality is usually continuous, namely, a gradual change in one morally significant factor triggers a gradual change in another; (2) the law should usually track morality; (3) therefore, the law should often be continuous. This argument is illustrated by cases such as the following example: since the moral difference between a defensive action that is reasonable and one that is just short of being reasonable is small, the law should not impose a severe punishment when the action is almost reasonable and no punishment at all when the action is reasonable (as positive law sometimes does). In this Article, I consider two doubts regarding this argument. First, the premise that morality is continuous in such cases is incompatible with the common view that the moral status of actions is not continuous since there is an important difference between actions that are permissible and actions that are wrong— even if this difference is due to a difference that is very small, such as the one between an action whose consequences are the best and an action whose consequences are just slightly less good. This view extends also to the overall moral status of agents given the common assumption that it depends on the moral status of their actions. This is an important challenge that the Continuity Argument should confront. However, I argue that the best account of morality is more scalar than the common view in these respects. Therefore, I conclude that the first premise of the Continuity Argument is correct in this regard, although it is based on a minority view. The second doubt concerns the scope of the second premise: since there are reasons both in favor and against legal continuity, and the applicability and force of these reasons depend not only on various moral propositions but also on contingent non-moral facts, we often lack the evidence to determine the degree to which the law, at a certain place and time, should be continuous, and specifically that it should often be continuous.

Gone and forgotten: Vinogradoff's historical jurisprudence

AbstractSir Paul Vinogradoff was once well known for his historically contextualised approach to legal theory which held that legal ideas were the contingent products of social factors. Law was necessarily engaged with other subjects, and ‘historical jurisprudence’ could produce real insight into the nature of law – in part by placing theories such as analytical jurisprudence in context, evaluating and modifying theoretical models by reference to the contingent social facts of an era. This was part of the nineteenth-century turn to ‘science’ in history and a focus on methodology. Sir Henry Maine argued that legal history proved the insufficiency of analytic theories, but his method met with many criticisms, some of which Vinogradoff sought to address. However, Vinogradoff's insights have rarely been pursued or developed, with legal history favouring Maitland's more doctrinal approach, and legal theory rejecting historical jurisprudence – at least explicitly. Despite its imperfections, historical jurisprudence offers a rich and valuable way to understand law, including to evaluate analytical models such of those of HLA Hart, and as a methodology for dialogue between comparative and historical legal scholarship. It has, in fact, continued to do so without explicit recognition in the 100 years since Vinogradoff's death.

The Semantic Thesis in Legal Positivism

For positivists, law ultimately depends solely on social facts about a community’s legal practices. This is a metaphysical thesis about the nature of law. But most positivists — including Scott Shapiro, Joseph Raz, and H.L.A. Hart — reject a semantic thesis, according to which statements about the law are solely descriptions of those social facts. The semantic thesis, they argue, is unable to account for those legal statements, commonly using normative language, that Hart calls “internal.” Some argue that internal legal statements are not (or not solely) descriptions of social facts because they express one’s acceptance of conformity with legal practices. In response to difficulties with this expressivist approach (including the so-called Frege-Geach problem), Raz offers a detailed alternative, according to which they describe moral facts that would exist from the legal point of view, that is, on the assumption that there are always moral reasons for conformity to legal practices. Raz’s approach, although avoiding the Frege-Geach problem, has its own difficulties. I argue for a much simpler reason for positivists to reject the semantic thesis. Most positivists are assignment positivists, not reduction positivists. Reduction positivists believe that a legal system and its laws are reducible to social facts about a community’s legal practices, the way a traffic jam is reducible to facts about its constituent cars. For assignment positivists, by contrast, a legal system and its laws are abstract objects, not social entities. But these philosophers remain positivist, for they think that the grounds for assigning certain of these objects to a community — such that they are the legal system and laws of that community — are ultimately solely social facts about the community’s legal practices. Consider the following analogy. Many philosophers consider a language to be an abstract object. The fact that “Le chat est sur le tapis” means that the cat is on the mat in French is not a social fact concerning French linguistic practices but is instead a necessary truth concerning the abstract object that is French. Nevertheless, these philosophers believe that the grounds for assigning that abstract object to the French community are solely social facts about that community. It is a contingent fact that the French speak French rather than, say, Esperanto. That they speak French depends solely upon social facts concerning French linguistic practices. By analogy, assignment positivists should reject the semantic thesis for the simple reason that internal legal statements describe necessary truths about the abstract objects that are a legal system and its laws. This approach, which was probably the one adopted by Hart himself, overcomes the problems with expressivism — in particular, the Frege-Geach problem — while avoiding the difficulties with Raz’s approach.

The Epistemological Power of Taste

AbstractIt is generally accepted that sight—the capacity to see or to have visual experiences—has the power to give us knowledge about things in the environment and some of their properties in a distinctive way. Seeing the goose on the lake puts me in a position to know that it is there and that it has certain properties. And it does this by, when all goes well, presenting us with these features of the goose. One might even think that it is part of what it is to be a perceptual capacity that it has this kind of epistemological power, such that a capacity that lacked this power could not be perceptual. My focus in this essay is the sense of taste—the capacity to taste things or to have taste experiences. It has sometimes been suggested that taste lacks sight-like epistemological power. I argue that taste has epistemological power of the same kind as does sight, but that as a matter of contingent fact, that power often goes unexercised in our contemporary environment. We can know about things by tasting them in the same kind of way as we can know about things by seeing them, but we often do not. I then consider the significance of this conclusion. I suggest that in one way, it matters little, because our primary interest in taste (in marked contrast to our other senses) is not epistemic but aesthetic. But, I end by suggesting, it can matter ethically.

Gaslighting, First- and Second-Order

AbstractIn what sense do people doubt their understanding of reality when subject to gaslighting? I suggest that an answer to this question depends on the linguistic order at which a gaslighting exchange takes place. This marks a distinction between first-order and second-order gaslighting. The former occurs when there is disagreement over whether a shared concept applies to some aspect of the world, and where the use of words by a speaker is apt to cause hearers to doubt their interpretive abilities without doubting the accuracy of their concepts. The latter occurs when there is disagreement over which concept should be used in a context, and where the use of words by a speaker is apt to cause hearers to doubt their interpretive abilities in virtue of doubting the accuracy of their concepts. Many cases of second-order gaslighting are unintentional: its occurrence often depends on contingent environmental facts. I end the article by focusing on the distinctive epistemic injustices of second-order gaslighting: (1) metalinguistic deprivation, (2) conceptual obscuration, and (3) perspectival subversion. I show how each reliably has sequelae in terms of psychological and practical control.

Which practice? – Rescuing the practical conception of human rights

ABSTRACT In his The Idea of Human Rights, Charles Beitz offers a criticism of what he calls ‘naturalistic’ conceptions of human rights that has since become seminal. He argues that philosophers have largely ignored the actual practice of human rights for the purpose of their theories. As an alternative to these views, he develops a novel practical conception of human rights, whose methods take seriously the role human rights play within our international practice. While his criticism of naturalistic views remains brilliant, Beitz’s alternative proposal has its own problems: it fails to explain the normative authority of human rights as a special class of rights, and it gives too much authority to contingent facts, thereby making human rights inherently static. It might at first seem as if these problems stem from the particular methodology Beitz employs. However, I show that this is not the case. The problems can be circumvented, I argue, by sticking to Beitz’s methodology, but shifting the focus onto a different type of social practice that human rights function to govern. In order to make sense of human rights, we ought to regard them as necessary conditions of any scheme of just social cooperation.

Contingent a priori truths and performatives

My primary goal in this paper is to defend the plausibility of Kripke’s (Naming and necessity, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1980) thesis that there are contingent a priori truths, and to fill out some gaps in Kripke’s own account of these truths. But the strategy here adopted is, to the best of my knowledge, still unexplored and different from the one adopted both by Kripke himself and by his critics. I first argue that Kripke’s examples of such truths can only be legitimate if seen as introduced by performative utterances (in Austin’s (How to do things with words, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1963) sense). And, if this is so, we can apply the machinery of illocutionary act theory (especially Searle and Vanderveken in Foundations of illocutionary logic, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1985) to these utterances to explain how one can have a priori knowledge of some contingent facts generated by the utterances themselves. I shall argue that the overall strategy can fill out two gaps in Kripke’s original account: first, we can explain the nature of the truth-makers of contingent a priori truths (they are institutional facts in Searle’s (Speech acts, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1969) sense, broadly conceived) and, second, we can explain how contingent a priori knowledge can be transmitted from one speaker to another (via the notion of illocutionary commitment).