Überzeugungen

@misc{frazer1919folklore5,
    author = "Frazer, S. J",
    title = "Folklore in the Old Testament",
    year = "1919",
    howpublished = "London \& New York, Macmillan, v. 1-3",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Frazer, S. J., 1919, Folklore in the Old Testament: London \& New York, Macmillan, v. 1-3.}"
}

@misc{smith1927the12,
    author = "Smith, W. R",
    title = "The Religion of the Semites",
    year = "1927",
    howpublished = "London \& New York, Macmillan, revised and enlarged by S.A. Cook",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Smith, W. R., 1927, The Religion of the Semites: London \& New York, Macmillan, revised and enlarged by S.A. Cook.}"
}

@misc{anselm1961st2,
    author = "Anselm, St",
    title = "St. Anselm",
    year = "1961",
    howpublished = "Basic Writings: La Salle, Open Court; Translated by S.N. Deane",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Anselm, St., 1961, St. Anselm: Basic Writings: La Salle, Open Court; Translated by S.N. Deane.}"
}

@misc{freund1964myths6,
    author = "Freund, P",
    title = "Myths of Creation",
    year = "1964",
    howpublished = "London, W.H. Allen",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Freund, P., 1964, Myths of Creation: London, W.H. Allen.}"
}

@misc{mckinnon1967miracle9,
    author = "McKinnon, A",
    title = "Miracle and Paradox",
    year = "1967",
    howpublished = "American Philosophical Quarterly, v. IV, p. 308-314",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {McKinnon, A., 1967, Miracle and Paradox: American Philosophical Quarterly, v. IV, p. 308-314.}"
}

@misc{swinburne1968the13,
    author = "Swinburne, R. G",
    title = "The Argument From Design",
    year = "1968",
    howpublished = "Philosophy, v. XXXXIII, p. 202-215",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Swinburne, R. G., 1968, The Argument From Design: Philosophy, v. XXXXIII, p. 202-215.}"
}

@misc{macintosh1970beliefin8,
    author = "MacIntosh, J. J",
    title = "Belief-In",
    year = "1970",
    howpublished = "Mind, v. LXXIX, p. 395-407",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {MacIntosh, J. J., 1970, Belief-In: Mind, v. LXXIX, p. 395-407.}"
}

@misc{hanson1971what7,
    author = "Hanson, N. R",
    title = "What I Do Not Believe",
    year = "1971",
    howpublished = "Dordrecht, D. Reidl",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Hanson, N. R., 1971, What I Do Not Believe: Dordrecht, D. Reidl.}"
}

@book{doria1976origins4,
    author = "Doria, C. and Lenowitz, H",
    title = "Origins",
    year = "1976",
    publisher = "Creation Texts from the Ancient Mediterranean: New York, Anchor Press\Doubleday",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Doria, C., and Lenowitz, H., 1976, Origins: Creation Texts from the Ancient Mediterranean: New York, Anchor Press\Doubleday.}"
}

@misc{wadia1976miracles14,
    author = "Wadia, P. S",
    title = "Miracles and Common Understanding",
    year = "1976",
    howpublished = "Philosophical Quarterly, v. XXVII, p. 69-81",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Wadia, P. S., 1976, Miracles and Common Understanding: Philosophical Quarterly, v. XXVII, p. 69-81.}"
}

@book{young1976creator17,
    author = "Young, N. J",
    title = "Creator, Creation, and Faith",
    year = "1976",
    publisher = "Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 219 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Young, N. J., 1976, Creator, Creation, and Faith: Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 219 p.}"
}

@book{warren1977the15,
    author = "Warren, T. B. and Flew, A",
    title = "The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God",
    year = "1977",
    publisher = "Jonesboro, National Christian Press",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Warren, T. B., and Flew, A., 1977, The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God: Jonesboro, National Christian Press.}"
}

@article{blake1979evolutioncreation,
    author = "Blake, Charles H.",
    title = "Evolution/Creation Debate",
    year = "1979",
    journal = "BioScience",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1307662",
    doi = "10.2307/1307662",
    number = "12",
    pages = "715-715",
    volume = "29"
}

@book{warren1979the16,
    author = "Warren, T. B. and Matson, W. I",
    title = "The Warren-Matson Debate on the Existence of God",
    year = "1979",
    publisher = "Jonesboro, National Christian Press",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Warren, T. B., and Matson, W. I., 1979, The Warren-Matson Debate on the Existence of God: Jonesboro, National Christian Press.}"
}

@misc{angeles1980the1,
    author = "Angeles, P. A",
    title = "The Problem of God",
    year = "1980",
    howpublished = "A Short Introduction: Buffalo, New York, Prometheus Books, 156 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Angeles, P. A., 1980, The Problem of God: A Short Introduction: Buffalo, New York, Prometheus Books, 156 p.}"
}

@article{dodson1980evolutioncreation,
    author = "Dodson, Edward",
    title = "Evolution/Creation Debate",
    year = "1980",
    journal = "BioScience",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1307870",
    doi = "10.2307/1307870",
    number = "4",
    pages = "220-221",
    volume = "30"
}

@article{fox1980evolutioncreation,
    author = "Fox, Sidney W. and Fox, Michael W.",
    title = "Evolution/Creation Debate",
    year = "1980",
    journal = "BioScience",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1307994",
    doi = "10.2307/1307994",
    number = "6",
    pages = "374-376",
    volume = "30"
}

@misc{morreall1980god10,
    author = "Morreall, J",
    title = "God as self-explanatory",
    year = "1980",
    howpublished = "Philosophical Quarterly, v. XXX, p. 206-214",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morreall, J., 1980, God as self-explanatory: Philosophical Quarterly, v. XXX, p. 206-214.}"
}

@article{moyer1980evolutioncreation,
    author = "Moyer, Wayne A. and Hanson, Earl D.",
    title = "Evolution/Creation Debate",
    year = "1980",
    journal = "BioScience",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1308059",
    doi = "10.2307/1308059",
    number = "1",
    pages = "4-5",
    volume = "30"
}

@article{moment1981evolutioncreation,
    author = "Moment, Gairdner and Hendrix, John E. and Wright, Robert D. and Lewontin, R. C.",
    title = "Evolution/Creation Debate",
    year = "1981",
    journal = "BioScience",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1308670",
    doi = "10.2307/1308670",
    number = "11",
    pages = "788-789",
    volume = "31"
}

@article{skehan1983theological11,
    author = "Skehan, J. W",
    title = "Theological basis for a Judeo-Christian position on creationism",
    year = "1983",
    journal = "Journal of Geological Education, v. 31, p. 307-314",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Skehan, J. W., 1983, Theological basis for a Judeo-Christian position on creationism: Journal of Geological Education, v. 31, p. 307-314.}"
}

@article{brooks1984the,
    author = "Brooks, Colin and Smith, John",
    title = "The evolution versus creation debate",
    year = "1984",
    journal = "Data Processing",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1016/0011-684x(84)90085-6",
    doi = "10.1016/0011-684x(84)90085-6",
    number = "7",
    pages = "24-26",
    volume = "26"
}

@book{boddy1990wombs3,
    author = "Boddy, J",
    title = "Wombs and Alien Spirits (Women, Men, and the Zar cult in Northern Sudan)",
    year = "1990",
    publisher = "Madison, Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press, 399 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Boddy, J., 1990, Wombs and Alien Spirits (Women, Men, and the Zar cult in Northern Sudan): Madison, Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press, 399 p.}"
}

Die Beharrlichkeit des „wissenschaftlichen Kreationismus“ ist eine Kuriosität in einem Zeitalter, in dem die epistemische Autorität der darwinschen Evolution praktisch Allgemeingut ist. Anstatt den Kreationismus als strikt technischen Diskurs zu konzeptualisieren oder psychologische Erklärungen heranzuziehen, untersucht dieser Aufsatz einen rhetorischen Ansatz für die Anziehungskraft des Kreationismus. Er argumentiert, dass Kreationismus nicht nur trotz, sondern teilweise auch aufgrund der Reaktion der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft fortbesteht. Eine Analyse der Kreationismus-Kontroverse zwischen 1975 und 1990 zeigt, dass die wissenschaftliche Reaktion auf Kreationismus sowohl die wissenschaftlichen Anspruchsbehauptungen des Kreationismus als auch die relative Abschottung wissenschaftlicher Entscheidungsfindung bei Fragen der öffentlichen Politik verkennt. Die Reaktion erweist sich schließlich als unempfänglich für die öffentliche Anziehungskraft des Kreationismus, die auf einer empiristischen Volks-Epistemologie beruht. Diese Studie hat Auswirkungen auf unser theoretisches Verständnis der Beziehungen zwischen technischem und öffentlichem Diskurs sowie des miteinander zusammenhängenden Verhältnisses zwischen technischer Expertise und rhetorischer Autorität.

@article{doi10108000335639209383997,
    author = "Taylor, Charles",
    title = "Of audience, expertise and authority: The evolving creationism debate",
    year = "1992",
    journal = "Quarterly Journal of Speech",
    abstract = "The persistence of “scientific creationism” is a curiosity in an age where the epistemic authority of Darwinian evolution is virtually a commonplace. Rather than conceptualizing creationism as strictly a technical discourse or appealing to psychological explanations, this essay explores a rhetorical account for creation‐ism's appeal. It argues that creationism endures not only in spite of the response of the scientific community, but also, in part, because of it. An analysis of the creationism controversy between 1975 and 1990 indicates that the scientific response to creationism misconstrues both the scientific pretensions of creationism and the relative insularity of scientific decision making on questions of public policy. The response ultimately proves unresponsive to the public appeal of creationism which is grounded in an empiricist folk epistemology. This study has implications for our theoretical understandings of the relationships between technical and public discourses and the related relationship between technical expertise and rhetorical authority.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/00335639209383997",
    doi = "10.1080/00335639209383997",
    openalex = "W1994709526",
    references = "broad1981creationists, doi101038315185a0, doi10106313050879, doi101086414171, doi1023072095325, doi1023072332835, doi1023072550489, doi1023073102264, doi1043249780203759240, doi1043249781912128310, moyer1980evolutioncreation, openalexw2042137662, openalexw3152784682"
}

@article{epstein1996beliefs,
    author = "Epstein, Larry G. and Wang, Tan",
    title = {"Beliefs about Beliefs" without Probabilities},
    year = "1996",
    journal = "Econometrica",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/2171834",
    doi = "10.2307/2171834",
    number = "6",
    pages = "1343",
    volume = "64"
}

Im Sommer 1925 wurde das verschlafene Dorf Dayton in Tennessee zum Schauplatz eines der erbittertesten Dramen des 20. Jahrhunderts: des Scopes-Prozesses, in dem William Jennings Bryan und die Antidarwinisten auf einen Lehrer namens John Scopes in eine berühmte Auseinandersetzung über Wissenschaft, Religion und ihren Platz in der öffentlichen Bildung trafen. Dieser Prozess markierte den Beginn eines Kampfes, der bis heute andauert – in Dover, Pennsylvania, Kansas, Cobb County, Georgia und vielen anderen Städten und Bundesstaaten im ganzen Land. Der Klassiker von Edward Larson, Sommer für die Götter, erhielt 1998 den Pulitzer-Preis für Geschichte und ist die einzige wirklich maßgebliche Darstellung eines Schlüsselmoments, bei dem die Kontrahenten bis heute in Schulbezirken und Gerichtssälen uneins sind. Für diese Ausgabe hat Larson eine neue Vorbemerkung hinzugefügt, die den Zustand des Konflikts zwischen Kreationismus und Evolution beurteilt und aufzeigt, wie er möglicherweise gelöst werden könnte.

@article{doi1023072587485,
    author = "Szasz, Ferenc M. and Larson, Edward J.",
    title = "Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion.",
    year = "2000",
    journal = "The Journal of Southern History",
    abstract = "In the summer of 1925, the sleepy hamlet of Dayton, Tennessee, became the setting for one of the 20th century's most contentious dramas: the Scopes trial that pit William Jennings Bryan and the anti-Darwinists against a teacher named John Scopes into a famous debate over science, religion, and their place in public education That trial marked the start of a battle that continues to this day-in Dover, Pennsylvania, Kansas, Cobb County, Georgia, and many other cities and states throughout the country. Edward Larson's classic, Summer for the Gods, received the Pulitzer Prize in History in 1998 and is the single most authoritative account of a pivotal event whose combatants remain at odds in school districts and courtrooms. For this edition, Larson has added a new preface that assesses the state of the battle between creationism and evolution, and points the way to how it might potentially be resolved.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/2587485",
    doi = "10.2307/2587485",
    openalex = "W2166035974",
    references = "openalexw1557693421"
}

Die Schöpfungsgeschichten, Mythen und Migrationslegenden der Creek-Indianer, die einst den Südosten Nordamerikas bevölkerten, sind Jahrhunderte – wenn nicht Jahrtausende – alt. Zum ersten Mal wurde eine umfassende Sammlung aller bekannten Versionen dieser Geschichten aus Berichten früher Ethnografen, Soziologen und Missionare, aus wenig bekannten wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften, Reiseberichten sowie aus dem heutigen Volk der Creek und Yuchi zusammengestellt. Die Creek-Konföderation entstand als politische Allianz von Menschen verschiedener kultureller Hintergründe, und viele der Traditionen, Rituale, Überzeugungen und Mythen der kulturell unterschiedlichen sozialen Gruppen wurden Gemeinschaftseigentum. Bill Grantham untersucht die einzigartigen mythologischen und religiösen Beiträge jeder Untergruppe zum sozialen Gebilde, das historisch als Creek-Indianer bekannt wurde. In jedem thematischen Kapitel sind die Geschichten nach Sprachgruppe entsprechend Swantons Klassifikation der südöstlichen Stämme gegliedert: Uchean (Yuchi), Hitchiti, Alabama, Muskogee und Choctaw – ein Format, das es dem Leser erlaubt, die Mythen und Legenden zu vergleichen und Informationen leicht abzurufen. Ein abschließendes Kapitel über zeitgenössische Creek-Mythen und -Legenden enthält zuvor unveröffentlichte moderne Versionen. Ein Glossar und ein phonetischer Leitfaden zur Aussprache einheimischer Wörter sowie eine historische und biographische Darstellung der Sammler der Geschichten und ihrer Quellen werden bereitgestellt.

@book{openalexw654178866,
    author = "Grantham, Bill",
    title = "Creation myths and legends of the Creek Indians",
    year = "2002",
    abstract = "The creation stories, myths, and migration legends of the Creek Indians who once populated southeastern North America are centuries - if not millennia - old. For the first time, an extensive collection of all known versions of these stories has been compiled from the reports of early ethnographers, sociologists, and missionaries, obscure academic journals, travelers' accounts, and from Creek and Yuchi people living today. The Creek Confederacy originated as a political alliance of people from multiple cultural backgrounds, and many of the traditions, rituals, beliefs, and myths of the culturally differing social groups became communal property. Bill Grantham explores the unique mythological and religious contributions of each subgroup to the social entity that historically became known as the Creek Indians. Within each topical chapter, the stories are organized by language group following Swanton's classification of southeastern tribes: Uchean (Yuchi), Hitchiti, Alabama, Muskogee, and Choctaw - a format that allows the reader to compare the myths and legends and to retrieve information from them easily. A final chapter on contemporary Creek myths and legends includes previously unpublished modern versions. A glossary and phonetic guide to the pronunciation of native words and a historical and biographical account of the collectors of the stories and their sources are provided.",
    openalex = "W654178866",
    references = "doi101093acref97801951027580010001"
}

@incollection{endsjø2009new,
    author = "Endsjø, Dag Øistein",
    title = "New Beliefs, Old Beliefs",
    year = "2009",
    booktitle = "Greek Resurrection Beliefs and the Success of Christianity",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230622562\_5",
    doi = "10.1057/9780230622562\_5",
    pages = "105-120"
}

@article{lamoureux2009evolutionary,
    author = "Lamoureux, Denis O.",
    title = "Evolutionary Creation: Moving Beyond the Evolution Versus Creation Debate",
    year = "2009",
    journal = "Christian Higher Education",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/15363750903018231",
    doi = "10.1080/15363750903018231",
    number = "1",
    openalex = "W2139142740",
    pages = "28-48",
    volume = "9",
    references = "doi101017cbo9780511536557, doi101093acref97801951027580010001, doi1015259780520909298, doi1015365joce1601602013, doi1023072947283, doi105860choice442655, doi105860choice462052, openalexw1557693421, openalexw2965328582, openalexw649908387"
}

Zusammenfassung: Ziel dieser Studie war es, die Wahrnehmung von Konflikten zwischen Evolution und persönlichen religiösen Überzeugungen bei christlichen biologiebezogenen Hauptfächern der Biologie an einem christlichen Universitätsstudium zu untersuchen. Diese naturalistische Studie nutzte ein Fallstudiendesign mit 15 Studierenden biologiebezogener Studiengänge auf Bachelor-Niveau sowie kürzlich graduierte Studierende derselben Fachrichtung an einer mittelwestlichen christlichen Universität. Als breite Datenquellen dienten Interviews, Kursunterlagen und Beobachtungen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die meisten Teilnehmenden zur Schöpfung erzogen wurden, aber Evolution akzeptierten, indem sie die Evidenz für Evolution bewerteten, die Literalität von Genesis aushandelten, Evolution als kein Heilsproblem erkannten und Professoren als christliche Rollenmodelle beobachteten, die Evolution akzeptieren. Diese Studie liefert heuristische Einblicke für Forscherinnen und Forschende sowie Lehrende, die die komplexen Prozesse verstehen möchten, mit denen christliche biologiebezogene Studierende beim Lernen über Evolution vorgehen. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 48: 1026–1049, 2011

@article{doi101002tea20417,
    author = "Winslow, Mark William and Staver, John R. and Scharmann, Lawrence C.",
    title = "Evolution and personal religious belief: Christian university biology‐related majors' search for reconciliation",
    year = "2011",
    journal = "Journal of Research in Science Teaching",
    abstract = "Abstract The goal of this study was to explore Christian biology‐related majors' perceptions of conflicts between evolution and their religious beliefs. This naturalistic study utilized a case study design of 15 undergraduate biology‐related majors at or recent biology‐related graduates from a mid‐western Christian university. The broad sources of data were interviews, course documents, and observations. Outcomes indicate that most participants were raised to believe in creationism, but came to accept evolution through evaluating evidence for evolution, negotiating the literalness of Genesis, recognizing evolution as a non‐salvation issue, and observing professors as Christian role models who accept evolution. This study lends heuristic insight to researchers and educators seeking to understand the complex processes by which Christian biology‐related majors approach learning about evolution. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 48: 1026–1049, 2011",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20417",
    doi = "10.1002/tea.20417",
    openalex = "W2057847083",
    references = "ayala2008science, doi101002tea20337, doi1015365joce1601602013, doi105860choice442655, openalexw1569351806"
}

Dieser Aufsatz analysiert den argumentativen Aufbau des „Answers in Genesis“-Werkes Museums für Schöpfung in Petersburg, Kentucky. Gegründet mit einem Förderbeitrag von 27 Millionen Dollar, vereinnahmt das 70.000 Quadratfuß große Museum die stilistischen und autoritativen Zeichen eines Naturkundemuseums, einschließlich technisch ausgefeilter hyperreeller Ausstellungen und moderner Kuratierungstechniken. In diesem Aufsatz argumentieren wir, dass das Museum einen kulturell autoritativen Raum bereitstellt, in dem Junge-Erde-Kreationisten visuell den Eindruck erzeugen können, dass über in der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft längst geklärte Fragen (Evolution) eine fortwährende wissenschaftliche Kontroverse besteht oder was Wissenschaftler als vorgetäuschte oder künstlich erzeugte Kontroverse bezeichnen. Wir analysieren die Ausstellungen und den Grundriss als argumentative Texte, um zu erklären, wie das Museum seinen behaupteten Status als Museum mit seiner ideologischen Mission vereint, den biblischen Literalismus zu verbreiten. Das Creation Museum bietet ein beispielgebendes Fallbeispiel dafür, wie die Rhetorik der Kontroverse genutzt wird, um bestehendes wissenschaftliches Wissen zu untergraben und pseudowissenschaftliche Überzeugungen zu legitimieren. Dieser Aufsatz trägt zu den Argumentationsstudien bei, indem er erklärt, wie religiöse Fundamentalisten die Struktur einer kontroversen Argumentation simulieren, indem sie die materiellen Signale fachlicher Autorität übernehmen, um ihre Behauptungen zu untermauern.

@article{doi10108000028533201211821759,
    author = "Kelly, Casey Ryan and Hoerl, Kristen",
    title = "Genesis in Hyperreality: Legitimizing Disingenuous Controversy at the Creation Museum",
    year = "2012",
    journal = "Argumentation and Advocacy",
    abstract = "This essay analyzes the argumentative structure of the “Answers in Genesis” ministry's Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. Founded by a $27 million grant, the 70,000 square-foot museum appropriates the stylistic and authoritative signifiers of natural history museums, complete with technically proficient hyperreal displays and modern curatorial techniques. In this essay, we argue that the museum provides a culturally authoritative space in which Young Earth Creationists can visually craft the appearance that there is an ongoing scientific controversy over matters long settled in the scientific community (evolution), or what scholars call a disingenuous or manufactured controversy. We analyze the displays and layout as argumentative texts to explain how the museum negotiates its own purported status as a museum with its ideological mission to promulgate biblical literalism. The Creation Museum provides an exemplary case study in how the rhetoric of controversy is used to undermine existing scientific knowledge and legitimize pseudoscientific beliefs. This essay contributes to argumentation studies by explaining how religious fundamentalists simulate the structure of a contentious argument by adopting the material signifiers of expert authority to ground their claims.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2012.11821759",
    doi = "10.1080/00028533.2012.11821759",
    openalex = "W1521231243",
    references = "doi10108000335639209383997"
}

In neueren Artikeln in dieser Zeitschrift haben Benoit Gaultier und John Biro argumentiert, dass die ursprünglichen Gettier-Fälle und die ihnen eng nachgebildeten Fälle fehlschlagen, und dass der Grund für das Scheitern darin liegt, dass die Person in diesen Fällen nicht wirklich den Glauben besitzt, der als Gegenbeispiel zur Analyse der gerechtfertigten wahren Überzeugung im Wissen dienen könnte. Sie behaupten, dass wir, wenn sich unsere Evidenz auf ein bestimmtes Individuum (wie im ersten Fall) oder auf die Wahrheit eines der Disjunkten (wie im zweiten Fall) bezieht, die Existenzverallgemeinerung oder die Folgedisjunktion nicht wirklich glauben. Ich werde ihre Argumente in Frage stellen und vorschlagen, dass unsere Weigerung, die Existenzverallgemeinerung oder die Disjunktion unter diesen Bedingungen zu behaupten, nicht auf fehlenden Glauben, sondern auf pragmatischen Prinzipien beruht.

@article{forrai2019gettiered,
    author = "Forrai, Gábor",
    title = "Gettiered Beliefs are Genuine Beliefs",
    year = "2019",
    journal = "Logos \& Episteme",
    abstract = "In recent articles in this journal Benoit Gaultier and John Biro have argued that the original Gettier cases and the ones closely modelled on them fail, and the reason for the failure is that the subject in these cases does not actually have the belief that would serve as a counterexample to the justified-true-belief analysis of knowledge. They claim that if our evidence pertains to a particular individual (as in the first case) or to the truth of one of the disjuncts (as in the second case), we do not genuinely believe the existential generalization or the disjunction which logically follows. I will challenge their arguments and suggest that our unwillingness to assert the existential generalization or the disjunction under these conditions does not stem from lack of belief but from pragmatic principles.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5840/logos-episteme201910219",
    doi = "10.5840/logos-episteme201910219",
    number = "2",
    pages = "217-224",
    volume = "10"
}

@article{dustan2020beliefs,
    author = "Dustan, Andrew and Koutout, Kristine and Leo, Greg",
    title = "Beliefs about Beliefs about Gender",
    year = "2020",
    journal = "SSRN Electronic Journal",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3512513",
    doi = "10.2139/ssrn.3512513"
}