Greg Detre
9/3/02
not enough philosophy
early structure was better
certainty � does Nagel actually talk about �certainty�?
The Last Word goes to giving reasons for
Penrose � interesting, philosophical
actually, more positive about Nagel than at the beginning
show how I�ve been persuaded by Nagel
deal with his strictures
presuppose too much of the reader with Cherniak
explain Davidson
content-determined restraints on which inferences a minimally rational agent would make
Davidson � more than just consistency
must have certain elementary beliefs
Cohen + Nagel are actually at odds
how not threaten Nagel�s objectivity with any claims?
need to show how I�m circumventing him
forward reasoning � hit on the promising routes
context of discovery vs justification
Baldwin � philosophy of science
understanding/assessing vs producing
post-rationalising unreflective rational rule-following
American Legal Realism � judges rationalise their random decision procedures
split-brain post-rationalisations???
Wittgenstein � counterfactual test
if the justification wasn't there, he wouldn't have come up with that justifiable conclusion
Nagel doesn't show why we fail
that what the forw/back
chapter � show why what Nagel says isn't an objection what I�m doing
so now I�m going to pick up the questions that he raises about scientific problems
1. relevant to the question
2. sustained argument within/across each chapter