TY - JOUR
T1 - Justifying Conceptual Development Claims
T2 - response to van Haaften
AU - Siegel, Harvey
PY - 1993
Y1 - 1993
N2 - This paper is a response to van Haaften's attempt to build ‘a natural bridge from “is” to “ought”’ and in doing so to provide a general account of how, in developmental theory, a claim that ‘a later stage in conceptual development is somehow better or more adequate than preceding ones’ can itself be justified. The account by van Haaften violates the ‘seems justified/is justified’ distinction and embroils him in a problematic form of relativism. This paper offers an alternative account of such claims in terms of stage‐independent criteria of adequacy.
AB - This paper is a response to van Haaften's attempt to build ‘a natural bridge from “is” to “ought”’ and in doing so to provide a general account of how, in developmental theory, a claim that ‘a later stage in conceptual development is somehow better or more adequate than preceding ones’ can itself be justified. The account by van Haaften violates the ‘seems justified/is justified’ distinction and embroils him in a problematic form of relativism. This paper offers an alternative account of such claims in terms of stage‐independent criteria of adequacy.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84993774347&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84993774347&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1467-9752.1993.tb00299.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1467-9752.1993.tb00299.x
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84993774347
VL - 27
SP - 79
EP - 86
JO - Journal of Philosophy of Education
JF - Journal of Philosophy of Education
SN - 0309-8249
IS - 1
ER -