University of Canterbury Home
    • Admin
    UC Research Repository
    UC Library
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    View Item 
    1. UC Home
    2. Library
    3. UC Research Repository
    4. Faculty of Arts | Te Kaupeka Toi Tangata
    5. Arts: Journal Articles
    6. View Item
    1. UC Home
    2.  > 
    3. Library
    4.  > 
    5. UC Research Repository
    6.  > 
    7. Faculty of Arts | Te Kaupeka Toi Tangata
    8.  > 
    9. Arts: Journal Articles
    10.  > 
    11. View Item

    The Inconceivable Popularity of Conceivability Arguments (2017)

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    Submitted version (190.5Kb)
    Type of Content
    Journal Article
    UC Permalink
    https://hdl.handle.net/10092/104098
    
    Publisher's DOI/URI
    http://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqw066
    
    Publisher
    Oxford University Press (OUP)
    ISSN
    0031-8094
    1467-9213
    Language
    en
    Collections
    • Arts: Journal Articles [314]
    Authors
    Deng Z
    Campbell, Douglas cc
    Copeland, B. Jack cc
    show all
    Abstract

    Famous examples of conceivability arguments include (i) Descartes’ argument for mind-body dualism, (ii) Kripke's ‘modal argument’ against psychophysical identity theory, (iii) Chalmers’ ‘zombie argument’ against materialism, and (iv) modal versions of the ontological argument for theism. In this paper, we show that for any such conceivability argument, C, there is a corresponding ‘mirror argument’, M. M is deductively valid and has a conclusion that contradicts C’s conclusion. Hence, a proponent of C—henceforth, a ‘conceivabilist’—can be warranted in holding that C’s premises are conjointly true only if she can find fault with one of M’s premises. But M’s premises are modelled on a pair of C’s premises. The same reasoning that supports the latter supports the former. For this reason, a conceivabilist can repudiate M’s premises only on pain of severely undermining C’s premises. We conclude on this basis that all conceivability arguments, including each of (i)–(iv), are fallacious.

    Citation
    Campbell D, Copeland BJ, Deng Z (2017). The Inconceivable Popularity of Conceivability Arguments. The Philosophical Quarterly. 67(267). 223-240.
    This citation is automatically generated and may be unreliable. Use as a guide only.
    Keywords
    conceivability argument; modal argument; zombie argument; ontological argument; physicalism
    ANZSRC Fields of Research
    50 - Philosophy and religious studies::5003 - Philosophy
    Rights
    All rights reserved unless otherwise stated
    http://hdl.handle.net/10092/17651

    Related items

    Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.

    • On the Authenticity of De-extinct Organisms, and the Genesis Argument 

      Campbell, Douglas (2017)
      Are the methods of synthetic biology capable of recreating authentic living members of an extinct species? An analogy with the restoration of destroyed natural landscapes suggests not. e restored version of a natural ...
    • Does the solar system compute the laws of motion? 

      Yang Y; Campbell, Douglas (Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2021)
      The counterfactual account of physical computation is simple and, for the most part, very attractive. However, it is usually thought to trivialize the notion of physical computation insofar as it implies ‘limited ...
    • Against Lewis on ‘Desire as Belief’ 

      Campbell DI (2017)
      David Lewis describes, then attempts to refute, a simple anti-Humean theory of desire he calls ‘Desire as Belief’. Lewis’ critics generally accept that his argument is sound and focus instead on trying to show that its ...
    Advanced Search

    Browse

    All of the RepositoryCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThesis DisciplineThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThesis Discipline

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics
    • SUBMISSIONS
    • Research Outputs
    • UC Theses
    • CONTACTS
    • Send Feedback
    • +64 3 369 3853
    • ucresearchrepository@canterbury.ac.nz
    • ABOUT
    • UC Research Repository Guide
    • Copyright and Disclaimer
    • SUBMISSIONS
    • Research Outputs
    • UC Theses
    • CONTACTS
    • Send Feedback
    • +64 3 369 3853
    • ucresearchrepository@canterbury.ac.nz
    • ABOUT
    • UC Research Repository Guide
    • Copyright and Disclaimer