DOCSLIB.ORG

Rationality and Rationalist Approaches in the Social Sciences

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rationality and Rationalist Approaches in the Social Sciences Outwaite-3587-16.qxd 6/12/2007 5:32 PM Page 282 282 RATIONALITY, COMPLEXITY, COLLECTIVITY 16 Rationality and Rationalist Approaches in the Social Sciences David Henderson FRAMEWORK associated with rationalism (the claim that some truths were a priori knowable). But, Rationalism may be understood as the they hastened to add that whatever was so philosophical position asserting a certain dis- knowable would be something on the order tinctive epistemic status for certain classes of of definitional truths—claims that there claims—that asserts or supposes that there were necessarily true as a consequence of are a priori knowable truths. On this under- the character of, and relations between, the standing, one is a rationalist if one holds that ideas or concepts employed in those claims. there are certain necessary truths that can All unicorns are mammals—necessarily, be justifiably believed (and that would then since our idea of a unicorn is of a rather par- count as knowledge) independent of empiri- ticular horsey thing, and our idea/concept of cal evidence for their truth. This is a some- a horse is the idea of a particular sort of what minimalist understanding of rationalism mammal (or so the rather plausible story (although these days there are those who goes). Nothing would count as a horse, and would count themselves as rationalist merely thus as a unicorn, were it not a mammal. by virtue of embracing this much). But, they insisted, this of itself does not Rationalism has traditionally been under- guarantee that there are any unicorns, or stood as making a stronger claim. In the horses, in the world. For that, field work, or modern period, empiricist philosophers such trips through the country with one’s eyes as Locke and Hume sought to debunk what open, would be needed. they believed to be the pretensions of ratio- While one might know by reflection the nalist thinkers such as Descartes and relations between our own ideas, said Hume, Leibniz. The empiricists would have granted it is a wholly different question whether there there were some claims that satisfied the is, in fact, anything in the world satisfying rather minimal characterization just now those ideas or concepts. Matters of fact could Outwaite-3587-16.qxd 6/12/2007 5:32 PM Page 283 RATIONALITY AND RATIONALIST APPROACHES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 283 only be justifiably believed, could only be This picture was challenged by a line of known, empirically. In opposition, the ratio- thought developed by Kripke (1972), Putnam nalists insisted that there were at least some (1975a), and Burge (1979, 1992). They argued things beyond the creations of our own idea- that what made for, or constituted, the concepts craft that could be known a priori—they in play could include elements of the individ- insisted that one could know substantive ual’s social and physical environment—and truths about the world by reflection, without was thus not wholly internal to the individ- reliance on experiential evidence. Descartes, ual: thus the idea of an externalist seman- for example, thought that we could know tics). On this view, at least some elements of that we were non-material souls, that God the semantics of (at least some important) existed, and that material objects were concepts are not (or need not be) accessible (Euclidean) three-dimensional extended to agents employing those concepts. As a things. (Perhaps there should be a three- result, there could be claims whose truth are strikes rule applied to philosophies.) guaranteed by the semantics of the concepts In any case, were we to be fully faithful to featured in them, but which could not be the terms of this venerable debate, we would appreciated by those individuals merely by need to refine our characterization of ratio- their drawing on whatever makes for an indi- nalism: we would need to understand ratio- vidual’s possession of the relevant concepts. nalism as the view that there are certain Perhaps all a priori knowable truths are con- substantive claims that are both necessary and ceptual truths, it might then be said, but, if can justifiably be believed (and thus known) externalism is correct, not all conceptual independent of empirical evidence for their truths are a priori knowable (even by those truth—where a claim is substantive if it is not who count as conceptual adepts at a given ‘merely definitional’, or ‘analytic’ or guaran- time). Even more significantly, when con- teed by the content of its featured concepts. cepts (semantic entities, meanings, and the I mention the traditional and more robust like) come to be conceived as rather more understanding of rationalism only to explic- than ideas in individual heads, the suggestion itly lay it to the side. There are multiple that a priori truths might turn out to be con- reasons for focusing on the minimal under- ceptual truths does not seem as threatening to standing in this contribution. Several reasons their significance as was once readily sup- have to do with the state of play in contem- posed. The empiricist idea that a priori truths porary philosophy. might be limited to conceptual truths no longer First, the idea of a truth that is guaranteed lends itself to the deflationary rephrasing, by the semantics of its elements no longer ‘mere conceptual truths’. seems to be what it used to be—and the Second, perhaps influenced by such con- changes have significantly complicated the siderations, those with avowedly rationalist philosophical landscape. A central develop- inclinations have comes to think largely in ment has come with the advent of what is terms of conceptual truths without feeling termed ‘externalist semantics’. Up until the insignificant (for example, Bealer, 1987; 1970s, almost all thought about the meaning Chalmers, 1998, 2002a, 2002b; Jackson, family (ideas, meanings, intensions, con- 1998; Peacocke, 1992). Conceptual truths cepts, semantics) supposed that these things pack some punch, at least if contemporary were settled by what went on inside a given understandings are roughly correct. individual. While such things as meanings or Now that conceptual truths have come to be concepts might be abstract entities, whether a thought of as ‘more muscular’ or substantive given individual entertained or deployed a as a class, the fan of a priori knowledge has given meaning or concept in a given stretch come to face a new challenge: to explain how of thinking was thought to depend on what it can be that those who are relatively profi- occurred within the skin (or perhaps head) of cient with the concept have, by virtue of that that individual.1 conceptual competence, access to powerful Outwaite-3587-16.qxd 6/12/2007 5:32 PM Page 284 284 RATIONALITY, COMPLEXITY, COLLECTIVITY elements of that semantics. This has been a putative a priori truth—that actions have matter of identifying a component of the rational antecedents and explanations, or semantics of the concept that are accessible at something along this line—would both least to those who count as ‘possessors’ of the inform and constrain work in the social concepts involved.2 But, we will not now sciences. It would inform a kind of explana- detail the lines of the contemporary debate tory practice—and one apparently ‘on the over the epistemology of the a priori. cheap’. After all, one would not have to These philosophical preliminaries do develop well-evidenced generalizations or serve to indicate why it is that contemporary descriptive theories of cognition; one would rationalists do not seem much concerned not need empirical theories of human cogni- with what their modern ancestors would have tion that underwrite the explanatory practice thought crucial—why they commonly are in question. Instead, one’s own normative not much concerned to show that there are a principles of reasoning would supposedly priori knowable truths that are not ‘merely turn the trick of informing and supporting conceptual truths’. They also serve to explain explanations. One’s own normative principles to my readers why my discussion of ‘ratio- or reasoning competence, representing or nalist approaches to the social sciences’ will tracking support relations between contents, focus on positions regarding the subjects of would structure explanations underwritten by social-scientific thought (on positions the very concepts of action and reasons. Such regarding beliefs, thought, actions, and the normative principles would also be constrain- like) that might be thought to be conceptual ing (again a priori constraining)—normative in their foundation. principles would need to figure in explana- In connection with the social sciences, the tion, thereby limiting the kind and character central matter on which a priori truths have of explanation one could employ in the been sought or sensed by those with rationalist human sciences. Such, in outline, is the inclinations has been the role of rationality in central rationalist approach to the social the explanation of action. Put starkly and sciences. In all variations of this generic overly simply, it is said to be a priori that approach, some significant degree of rational- finding one’s subjects to have beliefs and ity in belief, desire and action is thought to be desires that makes their actions rational a priori conceptually guaranteed. explains their actions, while failing to do so leaves their action unintelligible and unex- plained. This is said to follow from the con- THE RATIONALIST BRIEF cept of an action—which is said to involve the idea of a behavior engendered by rea- Why embrace some variant on the basic line sons. The concept of a reason is said to of thought sketched above? In surveying the involve the idea of a contentful state that rationalist case, one can begin by reflecting bears a (normatively approvable, i.e., ratio- on the everyday practice of explaining an nal) support relation to some other contentful action by attributing reasons to the agent state (that for which it is a reason).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rationality As Reasons-Responsiveness Benjamin Kiesewetter, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin
    Rationality as reasons-responsiveness Benjamin Kiesewetter, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Forthcoming in: Australasian Philosophical Review Abstract: John Broome argues that rationality cannot consist in reasons-responsiveness since rationality supervenes on the mind, while reasons-responsiveness does not supervene on the mind. I here defend this conception of rationality by way of defending the assumption that reasons-responsiveness supervenes on the mind. Given the many advantages of an analysis of rationality in terms of reasons-responsiveness, and in light of independent considerations in favour of the view that reasons-responsiveness supervenes on the mind, we should take seriously the backup view, a hypothesis that explains why reasons-responsiveness supervenes on the mind even though paradigmatic reasons are external facts. I argue that Broome’s objections to the backup view, as well as his more general objection to the thesis that reasons- responsiveness supervenes on the mind, do not succeed. I The idea that rationality and normativity are essentially related to each other has a long tradition in the history of philosophy. It is present in Plato’s conception of the rational part of the soul as directing us towards the good, in Aristotle’s view that being virtuous involves following prescriptions of rationality, as well as in Kant’s conviction that we gain insight into the moral law and can be motivated to act accordingly by way of exercising our capacity of practical reason. In the 20th and 21st century, when the notion of a reason became increasingly important for the conception of normativity, the idea is present in the common assumption that rationality is a matter of responding to reasons, or put the other way around, that reasons are the kind of things that can make responses rational – an assumption that can be found in the influential works of Donald Davidson, Philippa Foot, Christine Korsgaard, Derek Parfit, Joseph Raz, and Bernard Williams, among others.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is That Thing Called Philosophy of Technology? - R
    HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY – Vol. IV - What Is That Thing Called Philosophy of Technology? - R. J. Gómez WHAT IS THAT THING CALLED PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY? R. J. Gómez Department of Philosophy. California State University (LA). USA Keywords: Adorno, Aristotle, Bunge, Ellul, Feenberg, Habermas, Heidegger, Horkheimer, Jonas, Latour, Marcuse, Mumford, Naess, Shrader-Frechette, artifact, assessment, determinism, ecosophy, ends, enlightenment, efficiency, epistemology, enframing, ideology, life-form, megamachine, metaphysics, method, naturalistic, fallacy, new, ethics, progress, rationality, rule, science, techno-philosophy Contents 1. Introduction 2. Locating technology with respect to science 2.1. Structure and Content 2.2. Method 2.3. Aim 2.4. Pattern of Change 3. Locating philosophy of technology 4. Early philosophies of technology 4.1. Aristotelianism 4.2. Technological Pessimism 4.3. Technological Optimism 4.4. Heidegger’s Existentialism and the Essence of Technology 4.5. Mumford’s Megamachinism 4.6. Neomarxism 4.6.1. Adorno-Horkheimer 4.6.2. Marcuse 4.6.3. Habermas 5. Recent philosophies of technology 5.1. L. Winner 5.2. A. Feenberg 5.3. EcosophyUNESCO – EOLSS 6. Technology and values 6.1. Shrader-Frechette Claims 6.2. H Jonas 7. Conclusions SAMPLE CHAPTERS Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary A philosophy of technology is mainly a critical reflection on technology from the point of view of the main chapters of philosophy, e.g., metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Technology has had a fast development since the middle of the 20th century , especially ©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS) HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY – Vol. IV - What Is That Thing Called Philosophy of Technology? - R.
    [Show full text]
  • David Hume and the Origin of Modern Rationalism Donald Livingston Emory University
    A Symposium: Morality Reconsidered David Hume and the Origin of Modern Rationalism Donald Livingston Emory University In “How Desperate Should We Be?” Claes Ryn argues that “morality” in modern societies is generally understood to be a form of moral rationalism, a matter of applying preconceived moral principles to particular situations in much the same way one talks of “pure” and “applied” geometry. Ryn finds a num- ber of pernicious consequences to follow from this rationalist model of morals. First, the purity of the principles, untainted by the particularities of tradition, creates a great distance between what the principles demand and what is possible in actual experience. The iridescent beauty and demands of the moral ideal distract the mind from what is before experience.1 The practical barriers to idealistically demanded change are oc- cluded from perception, and what realistically can and ought to be done is dismissed as insufficient. And “moral indignation is deemed sufficient”2 to carry the day in disputes over policy. Further, the destruction wrought by misplaced idealistic change is not acknowledged to be the result of bad policy but is ascribed to insufficient effort or to wicked persons or groups who have derailed it. A special point Ryn wants to make is that, “One of the dangers of moral rationalism and idealism is DONAL D LIVINGSTON is Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Emory Univer- sity. 1 Claes Ryn, “How Desperate Should We Be?” Humanitas, Vol. XXVIII, Nos. 1 & 2 (2015), 9. 2 Ibid., 18. 44 • Volume XXVIII, Nos. 1 and 2, 2015 Donald Livingston that they set human beings up for desperation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ten Lenses of Philosophical Inquiry Philosophical Inquiry Research Project1
    The Ten Lenses of Philosophical Inquiry Philosophical Inquiry Research Project1 The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes. – Marcel Proust A huge part of Philosophical Inquiry is learning how to see the world with new eyes. To accomplish this goal, you will be introduced to the “ten lenses of philosophical inquiry.” The ten lenses of philosophical inquiry are tools to help us critically engage with, and analyze ourselves, and the world around us. Like a pair of glasses, the ten lenses help to change our perception and give us the power to re-examine our reality. In this philosophical inquiry research project you will get introduced to each of the ten lenses so that you become comfortable using the lenses both inside and out of our class. You will also learn more about a philosopher, their philosophy and the lens of philosophical inquiry that they are most clearly connected to. Focus Question What are the ten lenses of philosophical inquiry, and what are some examples of how they are connected to the philosophies of different philosopher’s throughout history? Philosophical Inquiry Research Process 1) QUESTION - Develop the philosophical questions that you will use to drive your inquiry. 2) PLAN – Determine the types of sources that you will need to answer your questions. 3) GATHER EVIDENCE – Gather the information (textual, visual, quantitative, etc.) you need to explore and answer your questions. 4) ANALYZE – Analyze the answers to your questions, making sure to keep in mind the larger focus question guiding this inquiry. 5) COMMUNICATE CONCLUSIONS – Use evidence and reasons to write an organized (logically sequenced) explanation to the inquiry’s topic/focus question.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 10: Psychology of Probability: Predictable Irrationality
    Lecture 10: Psychology of probability: predictable irrationality. David Aldous October 5, 2017 Here are two extreme views of human rationality. (1) There is much evidence that people are not rational, in the economist's sense [maximization of expected utility (MEU)]. Some would argue we need descriptive economics; I would argue that all should be taught about probability, utility and MEU and act accordingly [Dennis Lindley, Understanding Uncertainty.] (2) You mentioned research which revealed that shoppers often prefer \50% extra free" to a notionally more generous 33% reduction in price, and you cited this as evidence of irrationality or poor mathematical ability on the part of consumers. Since all value is subjective, if people value 50% extra free more highly than 33% off, then that is an end of the matter. Whether or not the resulting behaviour conforms to some autistic neoclassical idea of rationality is irrelevant. [Rory Sutherland, Ogilvy & Mather UK. Letter to The Economist July 21 2012.] The 2011 best-seller Thinking, Fast and Slow by Nobel Prize winning Kahneman gives a wide-ranging and very non-technical account of human rationality and irrationality. The key point is that we're not arbitrarily irrational but that our intuition is \predictably irrational" (title of popular 2008 Ariely book) in ways one can describe. The part of this field relevant to STAT 157 concerns \decisions under uncertainty", which necessarily involves issues of probability and utility. Psychology research gets real data from real people, but the data mostly consists of subjects' answers to hypothetical limited explicit relevant data exam-style questions involving uncertainty.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anti-Essentialism Paper
    The New Pragmatism, Anti-essentialism, and What is Universal: It’s The Situation All The Way Down C. F. Abel Stephen F. Austin State University [email protected] The New Pragmatism, Anti-essentialism, and What is Universal: It’s The Situation All The Way Down C. F. Abel Stephen F. Austin State University [email protected] A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!" Introduction “New Pragmatism” attacks the very foundation of pragmatic thought by denying that we may ever have any definitive experience. As what we are experiencing is up for grabs, we can never know any situation that we may encounter, and we are left to ground both our knowledge and our values in our language games alone. This paper argues that this set of claims is founded on two errors, one regarding the nature of language games and the other regarding the nature of deconstruction. The “Old Pragmatism,” by way of contrast, is non-essentialist but not anti- essentialist, and it resolves the problem of how we might know “the situation,” given the subjectivity of our observations and the contingencies of our language games, by suggesting that our experiences can be understood as existing in, and constituted by, the totality of their particular instances or modes at the time of inquiry.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biological Basis of Human Irrationality
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 119 041 CG 010 346 AUTHOR Ellis, Albert TITLE The Biological Basis of Human Irrationality. PUB DATE 31 Aug 75 NOTE 42p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association (83rd, Chicago, Illinois, August 30-September 2, 1975) Reproduced from best copy available EDRS PRICE MF-$0.83 HC-$2.06 Plus Postage DESCRIPTORS *Behavioral Science Research; *Behavior Patterns; *Biological Influences; Individual Psychology; *Psychological Patterns; *Psychological Studies; Psychotherapy; Speeches IDENTIFIERS *Irrationality ABSTRACT If we define irrationality as thought, emotidn, or behavior that leads to self-defeating consequences or that significantly interferes with the survival and happiness of the organism, we find that literally hundreds of major irrationalities exist in all societies and in virtually all humans in those societies. These irrationalities persist despite people's conscious determination to change; many of them oppose almost all the teachings of the individuals who follow them; they persist among highly intelligent, educated, and relatively undisturbed individuals; when people give them up, they usually replace them with other, sometimes just as extreme, irrationalities; people who strongly oppose them in principle nonetheless perpetuate them in practice; sharp insight into them or their origin hardly removes them; many of them appear to stem from autistic invention; they often seem to flow from deepseated and almost ineradicable tendencies toward human fallibility, overgeneralization, wishful thinking, gullibility, prejudice, and short-range hedonism; and they appear at least in part tied up with physiological, hereditary, and constitutional processes. Although we can as yet make no certain or unqualified claim for the biological basis of human irrationality, such a claim now has enough evidence behind it to merit serious consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • Dilemmas of Objectivity
    SOCIALEPISTEMOLOGY , 2002, VOL. 16, NO . 3, 267–281 Dilemmas of objectivity MARIANNE JANACK Objectivityis a virtuein most circles.As weevaluateour students (even those we don’t like)we tryto be objective. As wedeliberateon juries,we tryto be objective about the accused and thevictim, the prosecutor and thedefence. As wetoteup theevidence for and againsta certainposition or theory, we try to separate our personal preferences fromthe argument, or we try to separate the arguer (and ourevaluation of him/ her) fromthe case presented.Sometimes we do wellat this,sometimes we do lesswell at it,but we recognize something valuable intheeffort. Considerthe following cases inwhich objectivity or its failure is at issue: (1)A professorgives his favourite student an Ainaclass inwhichthe student has done onlymediocre work. (2)A scientistoverlooks evidence that would call intoquestion a theorythat she has goneout on alimbto defend,and has investedmuch timeand energyin pursuing. (3)A scientistskews data inorder to bolster support for a favouritepolitical cause. (4)A particularphilosophy journal, which does not use a blindreview process, only publishesarticles written by men. (5)A memberof a trialjury questions evidence presented in atrialbecause it conicts withracist stereotypes. Some ofthese invocations of objectivity imply that a separationshould exist between thesource or origin of the theory or argument and theargument itself. Some imply thatour deliberations should be answerable only to ‘ theevidence’ or ‘ thefacts’ and notsimply to our own preferences and idiosyncrasies.Some implythat our emotionsor biases (broadly understood to include emotions) should not interfere withour reasoning. Inits ontological guise, the appeal toobjectivity is a wayof appealing to the way thingsare, or to the world as itis independently of our desires about howwe want it tobe.
    [Show full text]
  • Putnam's Theory of Natural Kinds and Their Names Is Not The
    PUTNAM’S THEORY OF NATURAL KINDS AND THEIR NAMES IS NOT THE SAME AS KRIPKE’S IAN HACKING Collège de France Abstract Philosophers have been referring to the “Kripke–Putnam” theory of natural- kind terms for over 30 years. Although there is one common starting point, the two philosophers began with different motivations and presuppositions, and developed in different ways. Putnam’s publications on the topic evolved over the decades, certainly clarifying and probably modifying his analysis, while Kripke published nothing after 1980. The result is two very different theories about natural kinds and their names. Both accept that the meaning of a natural- kind term is not given by a description or defining properties, but is specified by its referents. From then on, Putnam rejected even the label, causal theory of reference, preferring to say historical, or collective. He called his own approach indexical. His account of substance identity stops short a number of objections that were later raised, such as what is called the qua problem. He came to reject the thought that water is necessarily H2O, and to denounce the idea of metaphysical necessity that goes beyond physical necessity. Essences never had a role in his analysis; there is no sense in which he was an essentialist. He thought of hidden structures as the usual determinant of natural kinds, but always insisted that what counts as a natural kind is relative to interests. “Natural kind” itself is itself an importantly theoretical concept, he argued. The paper also notes that Putnam says a great deal about what natural kinds are, while Kripke did not.
    [Show full text]
  • The Irrationality of Rationality
    7 THE IRRATIONALITY OF RATIONALITY Traffic Jams on Those “Happy Trails” distribute or cDonaldization has swept across the social landscape because it offers increased efficiency, predictability, calculability, and control. MDespite these advantages, as the preceding chapters have shown, McDonaldization has some serious disadvantages. Rational systems inevitably spawn irrationalities that limit,post, eventually compromise, and perhaps even undermine their rationality. The irrationality of rationality is simply a label for many of the negative aspects of McDonaldization. Irrationality can be seen as the opposite of rationality. Most generally, McDonaldization can be viewed as leading to inefficiency, unpredict- ability, incalculability, and loss of control.1 More specifically, the wider range of irrationalitiescopy, discussed in this chapter includes inefficiency, excessively high cost, false friendliness, disenchantment, health and environmental hazards, homog- enization, and dehumanization. Also discussed are the problems associated with notthe McJobs spawned by the process of McDonaldization. As problematic as those jobs are, perhaps even more of a problem is their loss as a result of nonhuman technologies (i.e., automation, robotization) replacing them. Most of this chapter, Do like Chapters 3 and 4, focuses on the irrationalities that confront consumers in McDonaldized settings. However, as in Chapters 5 and 6, we will also deal with the workers in these settings and the irrationalities associated with their occupa- tions, especially their McJobs. Irrationality also means that rational systems are 167 Copyright ©2019 by SAGE Publications, Inc. This work may not be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without express written permission of the publisher. 168 The McDonaldization of Society disenchanted; they have lost their magic and mystery.
    [Show full text]
  • A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont Scripps Senior Theses Scripps Student Scholarship 2019 A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry Karina Bucciarelli Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses Part of the Epistemology Commons, Feminist Philosophy Commons, and the Philosophy of Science Commons Recommended Citation Bucciarelli, Karina, "A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry" (2019). Scripps Senior Theses. 1365. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/1365 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Scripps Student Scholarship at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scripps Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A FEMINIST EPISTEMOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK: PREVENTING KNOWLEDGE DISTORTIONS IN SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY by KARINA MARTINS BUCCIARELLI SUBMITTED TO SCRIPPS COLLEGE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS PROFESSOR SUSAN CASTAGNETTO PROFESSOR RIMA BASU APRIL 26, 2019 Bucciarelli 2 Acknowledgements First off, I would like to thank my wonderful family for supporting me every step of the way. Mamãe e Papai, obrigada pelo amor e carinho, mil telefonemas, conversas e risadas. Obrigada por não só proporcionar essa educação incrível, mas também me dar um exemplo de como viver. Rafa, thanks for the jokes, the editing help and the spontaneous phone calls. Bela, thank you for the endless time you give to me, for your patience and for your support (even through WhatsApp audios). To my dear friends, thank you for the late study nights, the wild dance parties, the laughs and the endless support.
    [Show full text]
  • The Irrationality of Religious Beliefs
    The Irrationality of Religious Beliefs Published in Think 15, 15-33. Bryan Frances Abstract: Many highly educated people think religious belief is irrational and unscientific. If you ask a philosopher, however, you’ll likely get two answers: most religious belief is rational in some respects and irrational in other respects. In my previous essay I explained why they think so many religious beliefs are rational. In this essay I explain why they think those same beliefs are irrational. The charge of irrationality applied to religious belief could come from any of several distinct groups: philosophy professors who have studied rationality and religious belief for many years; intellectuals such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Paul Zachary Myers, and Sam Harris who have serious intellectual training but virtually no serious study of rationality (which is a subset of epistemology); intelligent atheists with little intellectual training at all; or unintelligent atheists who foam at the mouth on blogs and in bars. Different groups bring significantly different charges under the heading ‘irrational’. In this essay I will be articulating what professional philosophers think on the matter, just like how I described in the previous essay the primary factors that professional philosophers think make much religious belief rational. For the most part I will not be commenting on the strength of the charges—that is, I won’t attempt to figure out whether the charges show that religious belief is irrational in any worrisome sense. As I mentioned in the first essay, my methodology of listening to voices in my head is flawed. Even so, I think nine of the most common philosophical complaints about the epistemic status of most religious belief (which are not always the ones that get published in professional philosophy journals and books) begin as follows.
    [Show full text]