Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:

OpenAIRE is about to release its new face with lots of new content and services.
During September, you may notice downtime in services, while some functionalities (e.g. user registration, login, validation, claiming) will be temporarily disabled.
We apologize for the inconvenience, please stay tuned!
For further information please contact helpdesk[at]openaire.eu

fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Andow, James (2017)
Publisher: Springer Verlag
Languages: English
Types: Article
The word ‘intuition’ is used frequently both in philosophy and in discussions about philosophical methods. It has been argued that this intuition-talk makes no (clear) semantic contribution and that intuition-talk is thus a bad habit that ought to be abandoned. I urge caution in making this inference. There are many pragmatic roles intuition-talk might play. Moreover, according to one plausible story (for which there is some empirical support), there is reason to think intuition-talk is actually a good habit for philosophers to have.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Alonso-Almeida, F., & Marrero-Morales, S. (2011). Introduction to the special issue diachronic English for specific purposes. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 17, 13-22.
    • Andow, J. (2015a). How 'intuition' exploded. Metaphilosophy, 46(2), 189-212.
    • Andow, J. (2015b). How Distinctive Is Philosophers' Intuition Talk?. Metaphilosophy, 46(4-5), 515-538.
    • Andow, J. (2016). Thin, fine and with sensitivity: A metamethodology of intuitions. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 7, 105-125.
    • Benham, B., Naeimi, A., & Darvishzade, A. (2012). A comparative genre analysis of hedging expressions in research articles: is fuzziness forever wicked? English Language and Literature. Studies, 2(2), 20-38.
    • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Cappelen, H. (2012). Philosophy without intuitions. Oxford: OUP.
    • Chalmers, D. (2014). Intuitions in philosophy: a minimal defense. Philosophical Studies, 171, 535-544.
    • Goldman, A. (2007). Philosophical intuitions: their target, their source, and their epistemic status. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 74, 1-26.
    • Gómez, I. F., Gómez, S. P., Silveira, J. C. P., & García, J. F. C. (1998). Disciplinary variations in the writing of research articles in English. In I. Fortanet, S. Posteguillo, J. C. Palmer, & J. F. Coll (Eds.), Genre studies in English for academic purposes. Castello de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume.
    • Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M. S. (2002). Communicating science: the scientific article from the seventeenth century to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Hintikka, J. (1999). The emperor's new intuitions. The Journal of Philosophy, 96(3), 127-147.
    • Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles, Vol. 54. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
    • Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574.
    • Hyland, K., & Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific writing. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 42(1), 297-338.
    • Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. Applied linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
    • Lakoff, G. (1975). Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Berlin: Springer.
    • Lewin, B. A. (1998). Hedging: form and function in scientific research texts. Genre studies in English for academic purposes, 9, 89-108.
    • Malmgren, A.-S. (2013). Review of Philosophy Without Intuitions, by Herman Cappelen. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Retrieved from http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/39362-philosophy-without-intuitions/#_ edn6.
    • Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35.
    • Mihatsch, W. (2012). Hedges. In The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
    • Moulton, J. (2003). A paradigm of philosophy: the adversary method. In S. Harding & M. B. Hintikka (Eds.), Discovering reality: feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    • Poos, D., & Simpson, R. (2002). Cross-disciplinary comparisons of hedging: some findings from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. In R. Reppen, S. Fitzmaurice, & D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (pp. 3-21). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    • Prince, E., Bosk, C., & Frader, J. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In J. di Pietro (Ed.), Linguistics and the professions (pp. 83-97). Norwood: Ablex.
    • Roberts, R. C., & Wood, W. J. (2003). Humility and epistemic goods. In M. DePaul & L. Zagzebski (Eds.), Intellectual virtue: perspectives from ethics and epistemology (pp. 257- 279). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-170.
    • Salager-Meyer, F., & Defives, G. (1998). From the gentleman's courtesy to the expert's caution: a diachronic analysis of hedges in academic writing (1810-1995). In I. Fortanet, S. Posteguillo, J. C. Palmer, & J. F. Coll (Eds.), Genre studies in English for academic purposes. Castello de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume.
    • Salager-Meyer, F., Ariza, M. A. A., & Berbes, M. P. (2007). Collegiality, critique and the construction of scientific argumentation in medical book reviews: a diachronic approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(10), 1758-1774 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216606001305.
    • Salager-Meyer, F., Ariza, M. A. A., & Zambrano, N. (2003). The scimitar, the dagger and the glove: intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French and English medical discourse (1930-1995). English for Specific Purposes, 22(3), 223-247. http://www.sciencedirect.com.idpproxy. reading.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S0889490602000194.
    • Shapin, S. (1984). Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle's literary technology. Social Studies of Science, 14(4), 481-520.
    • Skelton, J. (1988). The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT Journal, 42(1), 37-43.
    • Stevens, K. (2015). The virtuous arguer: one person, four roles. Topoi. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9309-4.
    • Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Williamson, T. (2007). The philosophy of philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
More information Ok