Cited by 69Philosophical Ethics and TheoryEpistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

Do the evolutionary origins of our moral beliefs undermine moral knowledge?

Brosnan, Kevin·2011·Biology & Philosophy

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10539-010-9235-1

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brosnan, K.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Brosnan, Kevin
Venue
Biology & Philosophy
Published
2010-11-17
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
51-64
ISSN
  • 0169-3867 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-8404
OpenAlex
W2007759113
Cited by
69
References
26
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
16.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Biology & Philosophy (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Keywords
moral knowledge, evolution of morality, natural selection, moral facts, moral epistemology, evolutionary ethics, moral beliefs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review