<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Amateur Philosopher &#187; The Amateur Philosopher</title>
	<atom:link href="http://avromandina.net/avrom/category/the-amateur-philosopher/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://avromandina.net/avrom</link>
	<description>Analytic Philosophy for Fun (not Profit)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:30:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>The Trouble with Natural Kinds: Putnam&#8217;s Version</title>
		<link>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/the-trouble-with-natural-kinds-putnams-version/</link>
		<comments>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/the-trouble-with-natural-kinds-putnams-version/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:50:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Avrom</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Amateur Philosopher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[causal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[essentialism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kripke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural kind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Putnam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[realism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twin earth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://avromandina.net/avrom/?p=203</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This post is a continuation of my posts on natrual kinds; see my take on Quine&#8217;s account of kinds, and my two-parter on Kripke&#8217;s account of kinds.
Putnam&#8217;s views on issues of metaphysics and language have actually evolved extensively over time, and his main arguments for realism about natural kinds, which I&#8217;ll present here, do not [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/the-trouble-with-natural-kinds-putnams-version/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Trouble with Natural Kinds: Kripke’s Version, Part 2</title>
		<link>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/the-trouble-with-natural-kinds-kripke%e2%80%99s-version-part-2/</link>
		<comments>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/the-trouble-with-natural-kinds-kripke%e2%80%99s-version-part-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:55:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Avrom</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Amateur Philosopher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[baptismal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[causal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[essentialism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kripke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural kind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[realism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[XYZ]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://avromandina.net/avrom/?p=199</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this post, I argued that, contra Kripke, when the baptismal origin of a natural kind term has none of the properties we associate with that term, the term no longer refers to a kind that includes its baptismal origin. I then promised that I argue that, when objects not &#8220;of the same kind&#8221; (in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/the-trouble-with-natural-kinds-kripke%e2%80%99s-version-part-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Trouble with Natural Kinds: Kripke&#8217;s Version</title>
		<link>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/the-trouble-with-natural-kinds-kripkes-version/</link>
		<comments>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/the-trouble-with-natural-kinds-kripkes-version/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:45:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Avrom</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Amateur Philosopher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[baptismal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[causal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[connotative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[essentialism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kripke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Madagascar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meaning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural kind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[picture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[realism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tiger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unicorn]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://avromandina.net/avrom/?p=188</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Unlike my attack on Quine&#8217;s argument for natural kinds realism, my problems with Kripke&#8217;s natural kinds realism did make it into my dissertaion. My focus there wasn&#8217;t on natural kinds; it was, instead, on Kripke&#8217;s general theory of non-connotativity of certain terms (and natural kind terms are among them). But, at least for Kripke, non-connotativity [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/the-trouble-with-natural-kinds-kripkes-version/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Sinking Feeling</title>
		<link>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/a-sinking-feeling/</link>
		<comments>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/a-sinking-feeling/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Dec 2008 07:17:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Avrom</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Amateur Philosopher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Meta]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://avromandina.net/avrom/?p=183</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Songwriters, I&#8217;m sure, know it well, that tweak of deja vu when they listen to their last hook. It seems familiar, they think to themselves. Does it just seem familiar because I&#8217;ve been playing it so much, or is it that it&#8217;s an advertising jingle I heard when I was three?
At any rate, I&#8217;ve been [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/a-sinking-feeling/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dealing with Asymmetric Death in Damascus</title>
		<link>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/dealing-with-asymmetric-death-in-damascus/</link>
		<comments>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/dealing-with-asymmetric-death-in-damascus/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:40:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Avrom</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Amateur Philosopher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Death in Damascus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expected value]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[finite]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[game theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infinite]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irrational]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newcomb]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[one-boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ratifiable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rational]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[two-boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Weatherson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://avromandina.net/avrom/?p=172</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So, I&#8217;ve been obsessed lately with a couple of really good posts over on Thoughts, Arguments, and Rants about decision theory. In particular, there&#8217;s this post about a game Brian Weatherson calls (for reasons that are clear if you read the post) &#8220;Asymmetric Death in Damascus.&#8221;
Weatherson&#8217;s Original Example
Here&#8217;s a quick summary of the game. Predictor [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/dealing-with-asymmetric-death-in-damascus/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Stronger Claim about Projectability</title>
		<link>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/a-stronger-claim-about-projectability/</link>
		<comments>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/a-stronger-claim-about-projectability/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:27:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Avrom</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Amateur Philosopher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Meta]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://avromandina.net/avrom/?p=168</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So, I recently wrote a post that was intended to be an attack on Quine&#8217;s argument for natural kinds. And tucked away in the very last paragraph, I think I put the most important statement of the post: It&#8217;s really not just an attack on Quine&#8217;s argument. It&#8217;s an attack on a much more general [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/a-stronger-claim-about-projectability/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Bit of Fluff on Newcomb&#8217;s Paradox</title>
		<link>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/a-bit-of-fluff-on-newcombs-paradox/</link>
		<comments>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/a-bit-of-fluff-on-newcombs-paradox/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:15:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Avrom</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Amateur Philosopher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expected value]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irrational]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newcomb]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[one-boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rational]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[two-boxer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/a-bit-of-fluff-on-newcombs-paradox/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So, at first, I was really excited by the argument I&#8217;m going to make in this post, and I still think it&#8217;s kind of fun. But all it really is is yet another argument for two-boxing. And there are kazillions of arguments for two-boxing out there. At any rate, here&#8217;s one more, presented for your [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/a-bit-of-fluff-on-newcombs-paradox/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Trouble with Natural Kinds: Quine&#8217;s Version</title>
		<link>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/the-trouble-with-natural-kinds-quines-version/</link>
		<comments>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/the-trouble-with-natural-kinds-quines-version/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:34:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Avrom</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Amateur Philosopher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[automorphism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Goodman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hempel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[induction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[isomorphism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural kind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[predicate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[projectable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Putnam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[realism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/the-trouble-with-natural-kinds-quines-version/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although I&#8217;m a realist about scientific entities, I&#8217;m not a realist about natural kinds. In fact, anti-realism about natural kinds was, at one point, going to be the focus of my dissertaion (around and about my second year). Nothing *deeply* has changed about my problems with most standard accounts of natural kind terms, but I [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/the-trouble-with-natural-kinds-quines-version/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Moritz Schlick, Hard-Core Realist</title>
		<link>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/moritz-schlick-hard-core-realist/</link>
		<comments>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/moritz-schlick-hard-core-realist/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:12:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Avrom</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Amateur Philosopher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[analytic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boyd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[metaphysics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[realism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Schlick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[synthetic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[van Fraassen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[verificationism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://avromandina.net/avrom/?p=125</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;m not really a verificationist (see here for the beginnings of my account of content), but I have a lot of general sympathy for verificationism, and I think the verificationists were certainly onto something both true and important, even if they didn&#8217;t get the formulation quite right.
I am not a metaphysical anti-realist, though, and it&#8217;s always [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/moritz-schlick-hard-core-realist/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What My Dissertation Should Have Been About</title>
		<link>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/11/what-my-dissertation-should-have-been-about/</link>
		<comments>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/11/what-my-dissertation-should-have-been-about/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 02:05:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Avrom</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Amateur Philosopher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[counterfactual]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intension]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[picture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[possible world]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proposition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sentence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[story]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[truth value]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://avromandina.net/avrom/?p=97</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;m going to do something here that I very rarely did as a graduate student in philosophy: Present the beginnings of a positive theory. This, I think, was what I had seen my dissertation as leading up to, although it never got there and I&#8217;ve only recently thought of a completely choate way of expressing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/11/what-my-dissertation-should-have-been-about/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
