(R)evolutionary aesthetics: Denis Dutton’s The art instinct: beauty, pleasure and human evolution

Denis Dutton’s ‘‘The Art Instinct’’ succeeds admirably in showing that it is possible to think about art from a biological point of view, and this is a significant achievement, given that resistance to the idea that cultural phenomena have biological underpinnings remains widespread in many academic disciplines. However, his account of the origins of our artistic impulses and the far-reaching conclusions he draws from that account are not persuasive. This article points out a number of problems: in particular, problems with Dutton’s appeal to sexual selection, with his discussion of the adaptation/by-product distinction and its significance, and with drawing normative conclusions from evolutionary hypotheses

Learning and selection

Are learning processes selection processes? This paper takes a slightly modified version of the account of selection presented in Hull et al. (Behav Brain Sci 24:511–527, 2001) and asks whether it applies to learning processes. The answer is that although some learning processes are selectional, many are not. This has consequences for teleological theories of mental content. According to these theories, mental states have content in virtue of having proper functions, and they have proper functions in virtue of being the products of selection processes. For some mental states, it is plausible that the relevant selection process is natural selection, but there are many for which it is not plausible. One response to this (due to David Papineau) is to suggest that the learning processes by which we acquire non-innate mental states are selection processes and can therefore confer proper functions on mental states. This paper considers two ways in which this response could be elaborated, and argues that neither of them succeed: the teleosemanticist cannot rely on the claim that learning processes are selection processes in order to justify the attribution of proper functions to beliefs

Putting the burden of proof in its place: When are differential allocations legitimate?

It is widely assumed that legitimate differential allocations of the burden of proof are ubiquitous: that in all cases in which opposing views are being debated, one side has the responsibility of proving their claim and if they fail, the opposing view wins by default. We argue that the cases in which one party has the burden of proof are exceptions. In general, participants in reasoned discourse are all required to provide reasons for the claims they make. We distinguish between truth-directed and non-truth-directed discourse, argue that the paradigm contexts in which there are legitimate differential allocations of the burden of proof (law and formal debate) are non-truth-directed, and suggest that in truth-directed contexts, except in certain special cases, differential allocation of the burden of proof is not warranted

Virtue and argument: Taking character into account

In this paper we consider the prospects for an account of good argument that takes the character of the arguer into consideration. We conclude that although there is much to be gained by identifying the virtues of the good arguer and by considering the ways in which these virtues can be developed in ourselves and in others, virtue argumentation theory does not offer a plausible alternative definition of good argument

Definitions: Does disjunction mean dysfunction?

Our concern in this paper is with definitions that are not conjunctive. In particular, our concern is with definitions of things of a kind K which allege that there is a bunch of conditions, each of which is sufficient, but not necessary, for bestowing K-hood. Definitions of this kind, call them “disjunctive,” are often proposed for kinds of things that interest us, but they usually draw fairly muted applause. Many treat them as provisional, to be endured, rather than celebrated. Surely, it is thought, they do not provide all one might want from a definition. Because of water, art and other cases which apparently problematise the boundary between practice-mandated and theoretically-posited kinds, there will doubtless continue to be disagreements about the credentials of disjunctive definitions. Even so, we think we have gone some way towards offering a reasonable justification for the on-going debates and some apparatus for formulating the issues

Jackson’s armchair: The only chair in town?

Are all the facts about nations, cultures and economies really just facts about people's mental states and their interactions? Are all of the properties which determine whether or not a thing is a work of art really just physical properties of that thing? Is linguistics, the scientific investigation of language, best understood as a branch of psychology, the scientific investigation of the mind? Can psychology be reduced to biology? Can all biological phenomena be explained chemically? Is chemistry really just part of physics? Is there anything going on in the world which isn't a physical thing? Can there be freely-chosen, autonomous human action in a purely physical world? Frank Jackson has made a controversial claim about the way in which one should investigate questions like these. This paper is a qualified defence of that claim

Critical thinking and the argumentational and epistemic virtues

In this paper we argue that while a full-blown virtue-theoretical account of argumentation is implausible, there is scope for augmenting a conventional account of argument by taking a character-oriented turn. We then discuss the characteristics of the good epistemic citizen, and consider approaches to nurturing these characteristics in critical thinking students, in the hope of addressing the problem of lack of transfer of critical thinking skills to the world outside the classroom

Measuring critical thinking about deeply held beliefs

The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) is a commonly used tool for measuring critical thinking dispositions. However, research on the efficacy of the CCTDI in predicting good thinking about students’ own deeply held beliefs is scant. In this paper we report on preliminary results from our ongoing study designed to gauge the usefulness of the CCTDI in this context