The Master Argument of MacIntyre’s After Virtue

This chapter introduces the book, describes the key arguments of each chapter, and summarizes the master argument for medical nihilism. It offers a brief survey of prominent articulations of medical nihilism throughout history, and describes the contemporary evidence-based medicine movement, to set the stage for the skeptical arguments. The main arguments are based on an analysis of the concepts of disease and effectiveness, the malleability of methods in medical research, and widespread empirical findings which suggest that many medical interventions are barely effective. The chapter-level arguments are unified by our best formal theory of inductive inference in what is called the master argument for medical nihilism. The book closes by considering what medical nihilism entails for medical practice, research, and regulation.

Download Full-text

A Master Argument for Incompatibilism?

The Oxford Handbook of Free Will ◽

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195178548.003.0006 ◽

2005 ◽

pp. 126-157

Author(s):

Tomis Kapitan

Keyword(s):

Master Argument

Download Full-text

The Bishop’s Church: Berkeley’s Master Argument and the Paradox of Knowability

Canadian Journal of Philosophy ◽

10.1017/can.2021.9 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-16

Author(s):

Stephen Kearns

Keyword(s):

Master Argument ◽

Paradox Of Knowability

Abstract We can find in the passages that set out the Master Argument a precursor to the paradox of knowability. That paradox shows that if all truths are knowable, all truths are known. Similarly, Berkeley might be read as proposing that if all sensible objects are (distinctly) conceivable, then all sensible objects are conceived.

Download Full-text

‘God kan net doen wat God wel doen’: Petrus Abelardus se Megariaanse argument in Theologia ‘Scholarium’, Opera Theologica III

HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies ◽

10.4102/hts.v67i1.883 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 67 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Johann Beukes

Keyword(s):

Specific Reference ◽

Medieval Philosophy ◽

Restricted Access ◽

Master Argument ◽

Philosophical Questions ◽

The Way

‘God can only do what God does do’: Peter Abelard’s Megarian argument in Theologia ‘Scholarium’, Opera Theologica III Peter Abelard’s contribution to a constellation of central themes in post-Carolingian medieval philosophy, namely on causation, necessity and contingency, with its discursive undertone of the relation between potentiality and actuality, is worked out in a rather informal way in one of his later works, Theologia ‘Scholarium’. Typical of the fusion of philosophical questions and theological premises in medieval philosophy, Abelard addresses the issue by asking whether God can only do what God does. Abelard argues that God can do or not do or omit doing only those things which God does do or does not do or omits doing and that God can do or can not do or omit doing those things only in the way or at the time at which God does and not at any other. Given Abelard’s fragmented and restricted access to the Aristotelian corpus regarding causality, how did he come to this Aristotelian-orientated conclusion? This article stresses the ancient quality of Abelard’s argument from another angle, reminiscent of the so-called Master Argument of the Megarians, with specific reference to the dialectical legacy of Diodorus Cronus, according to whom what can be is what is: what is, in turn, is what must be. Actuality, for the Megarians, exhausts potentiality. The path of actuality cannot be undermined or compromised by issues of potentiality. God’s actions are thus for both the Megarians and Abelard strictly determined and determining. God, in the end, can only do what God does. This article contributes to scholarship in medieval philosophy or theology by making this connection explicit and by thoroughly exploring the link between Abelard and his ancient predecessors.

Download Full-text

Assessing Kant's Master Argument

Kantian Review ◽

10.1017/s1369415400000662 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 5 ◽

pp. 90-102 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Derk Pereboom

Keyword(s):

Master Argument

Download Full-text

Conceptual Engineering

Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198801856.003.0007 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 132-151 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Herman Cappelen

Keyword(s):

Good Reason ◽

Master Argument ◽

Conceptual Engineering

This chapter develops and defends the Master Argument for Conceptual Engineering: (1) If W is a word that has a meaning M, then there are many similar meanings, M1,M2,...,Mn, W could have. (2) We have no good reason to think that the meaning that W ended up with is the best meaning W could have: there will typically be indefinitely many alternative meanings that would be better meanings for W. (3) When we speak, think, and theorize it’s important to make sure our words have as good meanings as possible. (4) As a corollary: when doing philosophy, we should try to find good meanings for core philosophical terms and they will typically not be the meanings those words as a matter of fact have. (5) So no matter what topic a philosopher is concerned with, she should assess and ameliorate the meanings of central terms. I respond to seven objections to this argument.

Download Full-text