Additional reflections on Putnam, Wright and Brains in Vats

Putnam’s argument against the sceptical Brain-in-a-Vat hypothesis continues to intrigue. I argue in what follows that the argument refutes a particular kind of sceptic and make a proposal about its more general significance. To appreciate the soundness of the argument, I explain, we need to apprecia...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Noonan, Harold W.
Format: Article
Published: De Gruyter 2016
Subjects:
Online Access:https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/52825/
_version_ 1848798818721595392
author Noonan, Harold W.
author_facet Noonan, Harold W.
author_sort Noonan, Harold W.
building Nottingham Research Data Repository
collection Online Access
description Putnam’s argument against the sceptical Brain-in-a-Vat hypothesis continues to intrigue. I argue in what follows that the argument refutes a particular kind of sceptic and make a proposal about its more general significance. To appreciate the soundness of the argument, I explain, we need to appreciate that the sceptic’s contention is that I cannot know that I am not a brain in a vat even if I am not. This is why in response to the sceptic it is legitimate to make a transition from knowing that a sentence is true to knowing the truth it expresses, which is the crucial move in the argument.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T20:25:49Z
format Article
id nottingham-52825
institution University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T20:25:49Z
publishDate 2016
publisher De Gruyter
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling nottingham-528252020-05-04T18:04:35Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/52825/ Additional reflections on Putnam, Wright and Brains in Vats Noonan, Harold W. Putnam’s argument against the sceptical Brain-in-a-Vat hypothesis continues to intrigue. I argue in what follows that the argument refutes a particular kind of sceptic and make a proposal about its more general significance. To appreciate the soundness of the argument, I explain, we need to appreciate that the sceptic’s contention is that I cannot know that I am not a brain in a vat even if I am not. This is why in response to the sceptic it is legitimate to make a transition from knowing that a sentence is true to knowing the truth it expresses, which is the crucial move in the argument. De Gruyter 2016-09-01 Article PeerReviewed Noonan, Harold W. (2016) Additional reflections on Putnam, Wright and Brains in Vats. Metaphysica, 17 (2). pp. 207-212. ISSN 1874-6373 Brain-in-a-Vat; scepticism; Putnam; Wright https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/mp.2016.17.issue-2/mp-2016-0016/mp-2016-0016.xml doi:10.1515/mp-2016-0016 doi:10.1515/mp-2016-0016
spellingShingle Brain-in-a-Vat; scepticism; Putnam; Wright
Noonan, Harold W.
Additional reflections on Putnam, Wright and Brains in Vats
title Additional reflections on Putnam, Wright and Brains in Vats
title_full Additional reflections on Putnam, Wright and Brains in Vats
title_fullStr Additional reflections on Putnam, Wright and Brains in Vats
title_full_unstemmed Additional reflections on Putnam, Wright and Brains in Vats
title_short Additional reflections on Putnam, Wright and Brains in Vats
title_sort additional reflections on putnam, wright and brains in vats
topic Brain-in-a-Vat; scepticism; Putnam; Wright
url https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/52825/
https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/52825/
https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/52825/