User:Nootiebeans/Brain in a vat/Bibliography

Bibliography

As you gather the sources for your Wikipedia contribution, think about the following:

Is the source from a reliable publication?
- Reliable publications include established newspapers, academic journals and books, textbooks, and other published sources with reputations for accuracy and fact-checking.
- Unreliable sources include blog posts and other self-published works, press releases, and social media posts.
Is the source verifiable?
- In order for a source to be considered verifiable, other editors should be able to consult the source.
Is the source independent of the subject?
- Is the source connected in any way to the subject? This is especially important when writing biographies or about organizations.
- For example, if you were writing a biography, sources like the person's webpage or personal blog would not be considered independent.
Is the source primary or secondary?
- Primary sources include first-hand accounts, autobiographies, and other original content.
- Wikipedia allows limited use of primary sources, but typically only for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, and only if they are published and verifiable without requiring specialized knowledge.
- Secondary sources should be the main basis for a biography on Wikipedia.
If you're working on a topic related to medicine or psychology, ensure that your sources follow these special guidelines.
If you're creating a new article, consider the following:
- Ensure that your topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
- In order for a topic to meet the notability requirement, you must be able to identify 2-3 sources that are reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject you're writing about.
- Finding sufficient sources to establish notability can be especially hard when writing about people or organizations.
- Sources that are not independent of the subject might be useful additions, but don't count towards the notability requirement.
- Wikipedia has developed special guidelines for writing about living persons. Please follow these carefully.
- Wikipedia has a series of guidelines for writing about different categories of people, such as academics and artists. If you're trying to create a new entry about a living person, please look at these carefully.

If you're not sure whether a source is reliable, ask a librarian! If you have questions about Wikipedia's sourcing rules, you can use the Get Help button below to contact your Wikipedia Expert.

Get Help

Bibliography

This is where you will compile the bibliography for your Wikipedia assignment.

Brueckner, Anthony. “If I Am a Brain in a Vat, Then I Am Not a Brain in a Vat.” Mind, vol. 101, no. 401, [Oxford University Press, Mind Association], 1992, pp. 123–28, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2254123.
- ^[1]
- This source shows a different perspective on the concept that Putnam's BIV argument is self-refuting, this source can be used in the argument from incoherence section of the article because it provides a different point of view on how different philosophers have had different takes on the concept of BIV being self-refuting. Here in this source Brueckner points out how the concept of Putnam's BIV argument being self-refuting can be resolved.
Forbes, Graeme. “Realism and Skepticism: Brains in a Vat Revisited.” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 92, no. 4, Journal of Philosophy, Inc., 1995, pp. 205–22, https://doi.org/10.2307/2940923.
- ^[1]
Brueckner, Anthony L. “Brains in a Vat.” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 83, no. 3, Journal of Philosophy, Inc., 1986, pp. 148–67, https://doi.org/10.2307/2026572.
- ^[2]
- This source can be used to add onto the section within the BIV article that mentions argument from incoherence. Within that section of the article, it mentions how Putnam tried to argue that the statement "I am a brain in a vat" will always be incorrect due to the concept that a "pure" brain in a vat could never refer back to "real" brains or vats, therefore the claim that "I am a brain in a vat" is false. This source builds upon Putnam's argument and tries to better establish Putnam's argument by adding more premises and to try and establish a better route for the conclusion to be more plausible.
- This is one of the earliest suggestions of reconstruction, and more details on the reconstruction of Putnam's BIV argument can be added and found.
Hillary Putnam, Brains in a Vat
- This source is already cited on the article, but a piece that I will be referring back to is the concept of casual connection to provide more background on Putnam's argument about why it is not possible for a brain in a vat to say that they are a brain in a vat. Due to the fact that there is no causal connection between the usage of "brain" and "vat" with "real brains and vats." This will add upon what has already been written in the article.
Wright, Crispin. “On Putnam’s Proof That We Are Not Brains-in-a-Vat.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 92, [Aristotelian Society, Wiley], 1992, pp. 67–94, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4545146.
- ^[3]
- This source provides another take and reconstruction of Putnam's BIV.
CHEN, Jiaming, and Zhang Lin. “On the Issues of Transcendental Argument.” Frontiers of Philosophy in China, vol. 7, no. 2, Brill, 2012, pp. 255–69, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44259404.
- ^[4]
- This source mentions the usage of Transcendental Argument by Putnam

^ ^a ^b Brueckner, Anthony (1992). "If I Am a Brain in a Vat, Then I Am Not a Brain in a Vat". Mind. 101 (401): 123–128. ISSN 0026-4423.
^ Brueckner, Anthony L. (1986-03). "Brains in a Vat". The Journal of Philosophy. 83 (3): 148. doi:10.2307/2026572. ISSN 0022-362X. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Wright, Crispin (1992). "On Putnam's Proof That We Are Not Brains-in-a-Vat". Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 92: 67–94. ISSN 0066-7374.
^ CHEN, Jiaming; Lin, Zhang (2012). "On the Issues of Transcendental Argument". Frontiers of Philosophy in China. 7 (2): 255–269. ISSN 1673-3436.

[:0-1] Brueckner, Anthony (1992). "If I Am a Brain in a Vat, Then I Am Not a Brain in a Vat". Mind. 101 (401): 123–128. ISSN 0026-4423.

[2] Brueckner, Anthony L. (1986-03). "Brains in a Vat". The Journal of Philosophy. 83 (3): 148. doi:10.2307/2026572. ISSN 0022-362X. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[3] Wright, Crispin (1992). "On Putnam's Proof That We Are Not Brains-in-a-Vat". Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 92: 67–94. ISSN 0066-7374.

[4] CHEN, Jiaming; Lin, Zhang (2012). "On the Issues of Transcendental Argument". Frontiers of Philosophy in China. 7 (2): 255–269. ISSN 1673-3436.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]