Location
Room 2
Document Type
Commentary
Keywords
bias, chemistry, Copernican Revolution, cognitive science, emotions, evidence, neuroscience, warrants
Start Date
5-6-2020 3:01 PM
End Date
5-6-2020 4:00 PM
Abstract
This commentary consists of three parts. The first attempts to summarize the main theme of Weinstein’s paper, insofar as I can understand it; the latter qualification is obvious and almost redundant, except that I must confess I found it very challenging to make sense of his essay. The second part of my commentary advances some negative criticism of his paper, by focusing on issues of conceptual clarity and argumentative cogency. The third part elaborates a positive appreciation of what seems to be Weinstein’s main claim; I do so mostly on the basis of things which he does not even mention, but with which I happen to be acquainted.
Response to Submission
Mark Weinstein, Warranting evidence in diverse evidentiary settings
Included in
Commentary on: Mark Weinstein’s “Warranting Evidence in Diverse Evidentiary Settings”
Room 2
This commentary consists of three parts. The first attempts to summarize the main theme of Weinstein’s paper, insofar as I can understand it; the latter qualification is obvious and almost redundant, except that I must confess I found it very challenging to make sense of his essay. The second part of my commentary advances some negative criticism of his paper, by focusing on issues of conceptual clarity and argumentative cogency. The third part elaborates a positive appreciation of what seems to be Weinstein’s main claim; I do so mostly on the basis of things which he does not even mention, but with which I happen to be acquainted.
