Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorJackman, Henry
dc.creatorCumby, Jill Nicole
dc.date.accessioned2015-12-16T19:09:32Z
dc.date.available2015-12-16T19:09:32Z
dc.date.copyright2015-05-19
dc.date.issued2015-12-16
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10315/30618
dc.description.abstractThis dissertation provides a better understanding of the method of cases, a method widely used in philosophical theorizing. Using this method involves relying on one’s intuitive judgments about cases to guide theorizing. Recently, such judgments have been experimentally examined, and it has been argued that the results of these studies encourage skepticism about the trustworthiness of this method. Responding to this skepticism involves developing a better understanding of the method of cases and the reliance on intuitive judgments in theory construction. I contribute to this project by arguing for a constraint on the kinds of hypothetical cases that can function as compelling counterexamples in conceptual analysis.
dc.language.isoen
dc.rightsAuthor owns copyright, except where explicitly noted. Please contact the author directly with licensing requests.
dc.subjectPhilosophy
dc.titleConcepts, Cases, and Compellingness: Exploring the Role of Intuitive Analysis in Philosophical Inquiry
dc.typeElectronic Thesis or Dissertation
dc.degree.disciplinePhilosophy
dc.degree.namePhD - Doctor of Philosophy
dc.degree.levelDoctoral
dc.date.updated2015-12-16T19:09:32Z
dc.subject.keywordsMethod of Cases
dc.subject.keywordsConcepts
dc.subject.keywordsConceptual Analysis
dc.subject.keywordsIntuitive Judgements
dc.subject.keywordsTwo-Dimensional Semantics


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in the YorkSpace institutional repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved except where explicitly noted.