the Explanation of Human Action Questions
I’m working on a philosophy writing question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.
Answer the three questions
Question:
- Some causes for human actions are reasons; some causes for human actions are not reasons. Please give an example for each kind (you can use Rosenberg’s examples).
- To learn the beliefs of a person we need to employ [L]; to verify [L] we have to learn a person’s beliefs. This, according to Rosenberg, leads to a regress problem. Why can’t we learn the belief by simply asking a person “what’s your beliefs?”? Does this bypass [L]?
- Rosenberg suggests the possibility that no empirical evidence can falsify [L]. If so, which approach does Rosenberg think is in trouble? The naturalistic approach or the interpretational approach?