DOCSLIB.ORG

Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism The Future of the Scientific Realism Debate: Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism Author(s): Curtis Forbes Source: Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2018) 1-11. Published by: The University of Toronto DOI: 10.4245/sponge.v9i1. EDITORIALOFFICES Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology Room 316 Victoria College, 91 Charles Street West Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1K7 [email protected] Published online at jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/SpontaneousGenerations ISSN 1913 0465 Founded in 2006, Spontaneous Generations is an online academic journal published by graduate students at the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, University of Toronto. There is no subscription or membership fee. Spontaneous Generations provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. The Future of the Scientific Realism Debate: Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism Curtis Forbes* I. Introduction “Philosophy,” Plato’s Socrates said, “begins in wonder” (Theaetetus, 155d). Two and a half millennia later, Alfred North Whitehead saw fit to add: “And, at the end, when philosophical thought has done its best, the wonder remains” (1938, 168). Nevertheless, we tend to no longer wonder about many questions that would have stumped (if not vexed) the ancients: “Why does water expand when it freezes?” “How can one substance change into another?” “What allows the sun to continue to shine so brightly, day after day, while all other sources of light and warmth exhaust their fuel sources at a rate in proportion to their brilliance?” Whitehead’s addendum to Plato was not wrong, however, in the sense that we derive our answers to such questions from the theories, models, and methods of modern science, not the systems, speculations, and arguments of modern philosophy. Like philosophy, science often begins in wonder; but when scientific inquiry has done its best, it would seem, the wonder doesnot always remain. Ex cathedra, the scientific image of reality found in our current best scientific theories, inculcated in our science classrooms, and artfully presented through more popular media proffers far more answers than, say, Aristotle’s treatises on natural philosophy ever could; these answers, furthermore, * Curtis Forbes recently received his PhD from the University of Toronto’s Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology. His on-going research project aims to make the scientific realism question more personal than is usual—rather than trying to determine which philosophical interpretation of science is best per se, his research asks how we might determine which interpretation is best for specific people. Not coincidentally, he spends much of his free time wondering whether, why, and how much he himself should believe about the modern scientific worldview. Spontaneous Generations 9:1 (2018) ISSN 1913-0465. University of Toronto. Copyright 2018 by the HAPSAT Society. Some rights reserved. 1 C. Forbes The Future of the Scientific Realism Debate seem vastly more precise, accurate, deep, consilient, elegant, empirically sound, and widely accepted than any given by the modern scientific worldview’s alternatives and predecessors. Making sense of reality through the lenses of our current best scientific theories can leave a curious person feeling immensely proud of our collective epistemic achievements, incredibly intellectually satisfied, and utterly convinced that the picture of reality painted by these theories is true (at least approximately speaking). But philosophers can’t help wondering: is that picture true, even as an approximation? Is our world really the way modern physical theory describes it, abuzz with various unobservable (though perhaps detectable) entities whose causal interactions make everything appear to us as it does? Is it the aim of empirical science to discover some hidden reality behind our everyday experience, and thereby satisfy our wonder? Is that even possible? These are distinctly philosophical questions, for although they are questions about the epistemic outcomes, long-term potential, and ultimate aims of scientific inquiry, scientific inquiry itself is unable toanswer them satisfactorily. The theories of modern science, taken as true, provide extremely satisfying explanations when we wonder why ice has more volume than water, why iron turns to rust, or why the sun keeps shining day after day. But when we wonder whether these theories are true, whether the methods of empirical science could ever help us arrive at true theories in the first place, or whether scientific inquiry even aims to arrive at such theories, wehave reached the limits of science and entered the domain of philosophy. “Scientific realism” refers to any philosophical thesis that constitutes an affirmative answer to one or more of the questions above, e.g., byasserting that the theories of modern science paint an approximately true picture of unobservable reality, that scientific inquiry is capable of arriving at approximately true theories (even if it hasn’t yet), and/or that the governing aim of scientific inquiry is to arrive at such theories (even if it never will). Whether they understand it as a metaphysical, epistemological, or axiological thesis, casual observation suggests that the average person finds some form of scientific realism to be intuitively correct; formal surveys establish that most academic philosophers do as well (Bourget and Chalmers 2014, 481). Nevertheless, realist interpretations of science certainly have their detractors, and the ongoing debate between realists and anti-realists has been a central part of philosophical thinking about science for at least the last four decades. Thinking earnestly about the merits of scientific realism now requires navigating contentious historiographical issues, being familiar with the technical details of various scientific theories, and addressing disparate philosophical problems spanning aesthetics, metaphysics, epistemology, and beyond. For all these reasons, reviewing the extant literature on the topic can be both fascinating and frustrating. With that in mind, this special Spontaneous Generations 9:1(2018) 2 C. Forbes The Future of the Scientific Realism Debate issue of Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science collects over twenty invited and peer-reviewed papers under the title “The Future of the Scientific Realism Debate: Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism.” It was organized in the hope of providing a suitable forum for everyone to pause, catch their breath, and share their current thoughts on this topic. It should present a suitable place for any newly interested party to enter the debate and begin to make sense of the existing literature. Deeply immersed veterans whose thinking has shaped the course of the debate in recent years should find this collection valuable as well, including those who have contributed to it. Ultimately the hope is that this collection will help all curious parties better understand, appreciate, and reflect on the evolution of the scientific realism debate, its current state, and how we might move it forward fruitfully. I will count this collection as a success, however, so long as a few others find it as enjoyable to read as I have, even if, at the end, the shared wonder that drives the scientific realism debate remains. II. Articles For such a thoroughly discussed topic, it might seem strange that ANJAN CHAKRAVARTTY and BAS VAN FRAASSEN—the former a champion of scientific realism and the latter an opponent—have contributed a dialogue entitled “What is Scientific Realism?” investigating that very question. Scientific realism now comes in a variety of subtypes—semirealism, structural realism, entity realism, etc.—as its defenders have tweaked, qualified, and clarified the basic position to fend off various anti-realist challenges. Butas Chakravartty and van Fraassen’s conversation makes clear, more abstract differences between people’s conceptions of scientific realism have not always been sufficiently appreciated. Thankfully, this dialogue clarifies the differences between each author’s conception of scientific realism, revealing some important common ground and better mapping the contested territory. Because it addresses such a basic question, and in doing so reveals the complexity of the dispute, Chakravartty and van Fraassen’s piece provides an ideal place to start for anyone reading through this entire collection. JEFFREY FOSS addresses the debate over scientific realism with a refreshing combination of candour and irreverence. Foss reminds us that our realist commitments to science should be retail rather than wholesale, so “philosophers really should respond to the question, ‘Are you a scientific realist’ with the question, ‘Which bit of science do you have in mind?”’ (26). At the same time, people’s explicit pronouncements might not be the best way to determine their true ontological commitments, for their behaviour often implicitly presumes (or denies) the (likely) truth of various scientific theories. As Foss sees it, regardless of whether we assent to or dissent from a Spontaneous Generations 9:1(2018) 3 C. Forbes The Future of the Scientific Realism Debate realist interpretation of science in the classroom, at conferences, or in our publications,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • @)"'*"'O' See Fiont Matter 0039-3681/00$
    Stud.Hist. Phil. Sci.,Vol. 31, No. I, pp. l5l-112,20o0 @ 20fi) Elsevier ScienceLtd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain @)"'*"'o' see fiont matter www.elswier.com/locate/shpsa 0039-3681/00$ - Rudolf Carnap's oTheoreticalConcepts in Sciencet Stathis Psillos* 1. Editor's Introduction Rudolf Camapdelivered the hitherto unpublishedlecture 'TheoreticalConcepts in Science' at the meeting of the American Philosophical Association, Pacific Division, at SantaBarbarg Califomia, on 29 December1959. It was part of a symposiumon 'Camap'sviews on TheoreticalConcepts in Science'.In the bibli- ographythat appearsin the end of the volume, 'The Philosophyof Rudolf Camap', edited by Faul Arthur Schilpp, a revised version of this addressappears to be amongCamap's forthcoming papers.But although Camap startedto revise it, he never finisfusdthe revision,r and never publishedthe unrevisedtranscript. Perhaps this is becausevariants of the approachto theoreticalconcepts presented for the first time in the SantaBarbara lecture have appearedin other papersof his (cf. the editorial footnotesin Carnap'slecture). Still, I thinlq the SantaBarbara address is a little philosophical gem that needsto see the light of day. The documentthat follows is the unrevisedtanscript of Carnap's lecture.2lts style, then, is tbat of an oral presentation.I decidedto leave it as it is, making only very minor stylistic chonges-which, exceptthose related to punctuation,are indicatedby curly brack- ets.3I think that reading this lecture is a rewarding experience,punctuated as the lechne is with odd remarksand autobiographicalpoints. One can alnost envisage I Department of Philosophy and History of Science, University of Athens, Athens, Greece Received 28 Apil 1998; in revkedform I September 1998.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Science Reading List
    Philosophy of Science Area Comprehensive Exam Reading List Revised September 2011 Exam Format: Students will have four hours to write answers to four questions, chosen from a list of approximately 20-30 questions organized according to topic: I. General Philosophy of Science II. History of Philosophy of Science III. Special Topics a. Philosophy of Physics b. Philosophy of Biology c. Philosophy of Mind / Cognitive Science d. Logic and Foundations of Mathematics Students are required to answer a total of three questions from sections I and II (at least one from each section), and one question from section III. For each section, we have provided a list of core readings—mostly journal articles and book chapters—that are representative of the material with which we expect you to be familiar. Many of these readings will already be familiar to you from your coursework and other reading. Use this as a guide to filling in areas in which you are less well- prepared. Please note, however, that these readings do not constitute necessary or sufficient background to pass the comp. The Philosophy of Science area committee assumes that anyone who plans to write this exam has a good general background in the area acquired through previous coursework and independent reading. Some anthologies There are several good anthologies of Philosophy of Science that will be useful for further background (many of the articles listed below are anthologized; references included in the list below). Richard Boyd, Philip Gasper, and J.D. Trout, eds., The Philosophy of Science (MIT Press, 991). Martin Curd and J.
    [Show full text]
  • Conversations with Alan Musgrave
    Rationality and Reality STUDIES IN HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE VOLUME 20 General Editor: S. GAUKROGER, University of Sydney Editorial Advisory Board: RACHEL ANKENY, University of Sydney STEVEN FRENCH, University of Leeds DAVID PAPINEAU, King’ s College London NICHOLAS RASMUSSEN, University of New South Wales JOHN SCHUSTER, University of New South Wales RICHARD YEO, Griffith University RATIONALITY AND REALITY Conversations with Alan Musgrave Edited by COLIN CHEYNE University of Otago, DDunedin, New Zealand and JOHN WORRALL London School of Economics, London, UK A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN-10 1-4020-4206-X (HB) ISBN-13 978-1-4020-4206-X (HB) ISBN-10 1-4020-4207-8 (e-book) ISBN-13 978-1-4020-4207-8 (e-book) Published by Springer, P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands. www.springer.com Cover: Photograph of Alan Musgrave used with kind permission of Gudrun Perin, Guelph, Canada Printed on acid-free paper All Rights Reserved © 2006 Springer No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Printed in the Netherlands. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements vii Notes on Contributors ix COLIN CHEYNE / Introduction 1 GREGORY CURRIE / Where Does the Burden of Theory Lie? 7 COLIN CHEYNE / Testimony, Induction and Reasonable Belief 19 JOHN WORRALL / Theory-Confirmation and History 31 DEBORAH G.
    [Show full text]
  • Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism
    The Future of the Scientific Realism Debate: Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism Author(s): Curtis Forbes Source: Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2018) 1-11. Published by: The University of Toronto DOI: 10.4245/sponge.v9i1. EDITORIALOFFICES Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology Room 316 Victoria College, 91 Charles Street West Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1K7 [email protected] Published online at jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/SpontaneousGenerations ISSN 1913 0465 Founded in 2006, Spontaneous Generations is an online academic journal published by graduate students at the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, University of Toronto. There is no subscription or membership fee. Spontaneous Generations provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. The Future of the Scientific Realism Debate: Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism Curtis Forbes* I. Introduction “Philosophy,” Plato’s Socrates said, “begins in wonder” (Theaetetus, 155d). Two and a half millennia later, Alfred North Whitehead saw fit to add: “And, at the end, when philosophical thought has done its best, the wonder remains” (1938, 168). Nevertheless, we tend to no longer wonder about many questions that would have stumped (if not vexed) the ancients: “Why does water expand when it freezes?” “How can one substance change into another?” “What allows the sun to continue to shine so brightly, day after day, while all other sources of light and warmth exhaust their fuel sources at a rate in proportion to their brilliance?” Whitehead’s addendum to Plato was not wrong, however, in the sense that we derive our answers to such questions from the theories, models, and methods of modern science, not the systems, speculations, and arguments of modern philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • David Rivett
    DAVID RIVETT: FIGHTER FOR AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE OTHER WORKS OF ROHAN RIVETT Behind Bamboo. 1946 Three Cricket Booklets. 1948-52 The Community and the Migrant. 1957 Australian Citizen: Herbert Brookes 1867-1963. 1966 Australia (The Oxford Modern World Series). 1968 Writing About Australia. 1970 This page intentionally left blank David Rivett as painted by Max Meldrum. This portrait hangs at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's headquarters in Canberra. ROHAN RIVETT David Rivett: FIGHTER FOR AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE RIVETT First published 1972 All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission © Rohan Rivett, 1972 Printed in Australia at The Dominion Press, North Blackburn, Victoria Registered in Australia for transmission by post as a book Contents Foreword Vll Acknowledgments Xl The Attack 1 Carving the Path 15 Australian at Edwardian Oxford 28 1912 to 1925 54 Launching C.S.I.R. for Australia 81 Interludes Without Playtime 120 The Thirties 126 Through the War-And Afterwards 172 Index 219 v This page intentionally left blank Foreword By Baron Casey of Berwick and of the City of Westminster K.G., P.C., G.C.M.G., C.H., D.S.a., M.C., M.A., F.A.A. The framework and content of David Rivett's life, unusual though it was, can be briefly stated as it was dominated by some simple and most unusual principles. He and I met frequently in the early 1930's and discussed what we were both aiming to do in our respective fields. He was a man of the most rigid integrity and way of life.
    [Show full text]
  • Regularity Theories
    Regularity Theories Oxford Handbooks Online Regularity Theories Stathis Psillos The Oxford Handbook of Causation Edited by Helen Beebee, Christopher Hitchcock, and Peter Menzies Print Publication Date: Nov 2009 Subject: Philosophy, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Science Online Publication Date: Jan 2010 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199279739.003.0008 Abstract and Keywords This article articulates Regularity View of Causation (RVC) with an eye to two things: first, its conceptual development; second, its basic commitments and implications for what causation is. The article has chosen to present RVC in a way that respects its historical origins and unravels the steps of its articulation in the face of objections and criticism. It is important for the explication and defence of RVC to see it as a view of causation that emerged in a certain intellectual milieu. RVC has been developed as an attempt to remove efficiency from causation and hence, to view causation not as a productive relation but as a relation of dependence among discrete events. In particular, the thought that causation is regularity is meant to oppose metaphysical views of causation that posit powers or other kinds of entity that are supposed to enforce the regularities that there are in the world or to explain the alleged necessity that there is in causation. Keywords: Regularity View of Causation, causation, dependence, regularities, metaphysics, regularity theories 1. Introduction David Hume has made available a view of causation as it is in the world that can be called the Regularity View of Causation (RVC). His famous first definition runs thus: ‘We may define a CAUSE to be “An object precedent and contiguous to another, and where all the objects resembling the former are plac'd in like relations of precedency and contiguity to those objects, that resemble the latter” ([1739] 1978: 170).
    [Show full text]
  • Uma Breve História Da Geometria Molecular Sob a Perspectiva Didático-Epistemológica De Guy Brousseau
    Uma Breve História da Geometria Molecular sob a Perspectiva Didático-Epistemológica de Guy Brousseau Kleyfton Soares da Silva Laerte Silva da Fonseca Johnnatan Duarte de Freitas RESUMO O objetivo desta pesquisa foi analisar a evolução histórica da Geometria Molecular (GM), de modo a apresentar discussões, limitações, dificuldades e avanços associados à concepção do saber em jogo e, através disso, contribuir com elementos para análise crítica da organização didática em livros e sequências de ensino. Foi realizado um levantamento histórico na perspectiva epistemológica defendida por Brousseau (1983), em que a compreensão da evolução conceitual do conteúdo visado pelo estudo é alcançada quando há o entrelaçamento de fatos que ajudam a identificar obstáculos que limitaram e/ou limitam a aprendizagem de um dado conteúdo. Trata-se de uma abordagem inédita tanto pelo direcionamento do conteúdo como pela metodologia adotada. A análise histórica permitiu traçar um conjunto de oito obstáculos que por um lado estagnou a evolução do conceito de GM e por outro impulsionou cientistas a buscarem alternativas teóricas e metodológicas para resolver os problemas que foram surgindo ao longo do tempo. O estudo mostrou que a questão da visualização em química e da necessidade de manipulação física de modelos moleculares é constitutiva da própria evolução história da GM. Esse ponto amplifica a necessidade de superação contínua dos obstáculos epistemológicos e cognitivos associados às representações moleculares. Palavras-chave: Análise Epistemológica. Geometria
    [Show full text]
  • Fritz Arndt and His Chemistry Books in the Turkish Language
    42 Bull. Hist. Chem., VOLUME 28, Number 1 (2003) FRITZ ARNDT AND HIS CHEMISTRY BOOKS IN THE TURKISH LANGUAGE Lâle Aka Burk, Smith College Fritz Georg Arndt (1885-1969) possibly is best recog- his “other great love, and Brahms unquestionably his nized for his contributions to synthetic methodology. favorite composer (5).” The Arndt-Eistert synthesis, a well-known reaction in After graduating from the Matthias-Claudius Gym- organic chemistry included in many textbooks has been nasium in Wansbek in greater Hamburg, Arndt began used over the years by numerous chemists to prepare his university education in 1903 at the University of carboxylic acids from their lower homologues (1). Per- Geneva, where he studied chemistry and French. Fol- haps less well recognized is Arndt’s pioneering work in lowing the practice at the time of attending several in- the development of resonance theory (2). Arndt also stitutions, he went from Geneva to Freiburg, where he contributed greatly to chemistry in Turkey, where he studied with Ludwig Gattermann and completed his played a leadership role in the modernization of the sci- doctoral examinations. He spent a semester in Berlin ence (3). A detailed commemorative article by W. Walter attending lectures by Emil Fischer and Walther Nernst, and B. Eistert on Arndt’s life and works was published then returned to Freiburg and worked with Johann in German in 1975 (4). Other sources in English on Howitz and received his doctorate, summa cum laude, Fritz Arndt and his contributions to chemistry, specifi- in 1908. Arndt remained for a time in Freiburg as a cally discussions of his work in Turkey, are limited.
    [Show full text]
  • Poincare Conventions Relations
    Conventions and Relations in Poincaré’s Philosophy of Science ∗∗∗ Stathis Psillos Dept of Philosophy and History of Science University of Athens, Greece & Rotman Institute of Philosophy & Dept of Philosophy, University of Western Ontario, Canada e-mail: [email protected] 1. Introduction Henri Poincare’s La Science et l’ Hypothése was translated into English in 1905. One of the first reviews—published already in 1905—was by Bertrand Russell. After praising Poincaré for his “power of co-ordinating the whole domain of mathematics and physics in a single system of ideas” (1905, 412), Russell—in this short by pointed review—put forward the two main interpretations of Poincaré’s thought that subsequently became standard. Poincaré was a conventionalist and a structuralist. According to Russell, Poincaré argued that geometry is wholly conventional and that the principles of mechanics are definitions. He rather quickly dismissed this view by taking the line that conventions are merely hypotheses which have been willingly withdrawn from empirical testing and claimed that they were not really necessary qua a different epistemic category. 1 Interestingly, he spent more time explaining that for Poincaré “science teaches us, not about things in themselves, but about their relations” (1905, 412). As Russell understood Poincaré’s main thesis, “if a really exists, a statement about a has no meaning unless it asserts a relation to a b which also really exists” (1905, 417). His prime disagreement with Poincaré was that he took that statements about qualities of real things are not devoid of meaning but simply unknowable. But apart from that, Russell endorsed this relationist reading of Poincaré and made two important points.
    [Show full text]
  • David Papineau
    1 The Problem of Consciousness David Papineau Forthcoming in The Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Consciousness ed Uriah Kriegel Introduction Consciousness raises a range of philosophical questions. We can distinguish between the How? , Where? , and What? questions. First, how does consciousness relate to other features of reality? Second, where are conscious phenomena located in reality? And, third, what is the nature of consciousness? In line with much philosophical writing over the past fifty years, this chapter will focus mostly on the How? question. Towards the end I shall also say some things about the Where? question. As for the What? question, a few brief introductory remarks will have to suffice. This is not to deny that the What? question raises a range of philosophically interesting issues. There is much to ask about the nature of consciousness. Must conscious states always involve some reflective awareness of themselves? Do all conscious states have an intentional content? Must consciousness always be consciousness for some subject, and if so for what kind of subject? In what sense, if any, are the conscious experiences of a subject at a given time always unified into some whole? However, in order to keep my task manageable, I shall leave issues like these for the essays that follow in this volume. For my purposes, it will be enough if we simply characterize consciousness in the normal way, as states that are “like something” for the subjects that have them. If examples are wanted, simply reflect on the difference between having your eyes open, and enjoying a range of conscious visual experiences, and closing your eyes and eliminating those conscious experiences.
    [Show full text]
  • Hilary Putnam and Immanuel Kant: Two ‘Internal Realists’?
    DERMOT MORAN HILARY PUTNAM AND IMMANUEL KANT: TWO ‘INTERNAL REALISTS’? ABSTRACT. Since 1976 Hilary Putnam has drawn parallels between his ‘internal’, ‘prag- matic’, ‘natural’ or ‘common-sense’ realism and Kant’s transcendental idealism. Putnam reads Kant as rejecting the then current metaphysical picture with its in-built assumptions of a unique, mind-independent world, and truth understood as correspondence between the mind and that ready-made world. Putnam reads Kant as overcoming the false dichotomies inherent in that picture and even finds some glimmerings of conceptual relativity in Kant’s proposed solution. Furthermore, Putnam reads Kant as overcoming the pernicious scientific realist distinction between primary and secondary qualities, between things that really exist and their projections, a distinction that haunts modern philosophy. Putnam’s revitalisation of Kant is not just of historical interest, but challenges contemporary versions of scientific realism. Furthermore, Putnam has highlighted themes which have not received the attention they deserve in Kantian exegesis, namely, the problematic role of primary and secondary qualities in Kant’s empirical realism, and the extent of Kant’s commitment to conceptual pluralism. However, I argue that Putnam’s qualified allegiance to Kant exposes him to some of the same metaphysical problems that affected Kant, namely, the familiar problem of postulating an absolute reality (Ding an sich), while at the same time disavowing the meaningfulness of so doing. In conclusion I suggest that Putnam might consider Hegel’s attempts to solve this problem in Kant as a way of furthering his own natural realism. 1. INTRODUCTION: PUTNAM AND KANT Putnam’s central focus since 1976 has been an attempt to articulate a kind of realism which does not end up either falsifying the world, through a false extrapolation from the results of science, or losing it entirely in scepticism and relativism.
    [Show full text]
  • Panpsychism, Priority Cosmopsychism and Information
    Fundamental Consciousness: Panpsychism, Priority Cosmopsychism and Information By Nino Kadić Submitted to Central European University Department of Philosophy In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Master of Philosophy Supervisor: Philip A. Goff Budapest, Hungary CEU eTD Collection 2016 Abstract In this thesis, I argue that consciousness cannot be explained solely in terms of the facts revealed to us by empirical science. This is explained through a discussion of the explanatory gap between our knowledge of physical facts and those regarding consciousness. Specifically, I argue against the Phenomenal Concept Strategy, a fairly recent approach to answering anti-physicalist arguments. I then claim that if we take consciousness as something that cannot be explained in purely physical terms, we must also say that it is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. I explain the motivation for accepting this claim by considering what it means for something to be an intrinsic nature and by addressing the problem of strong emergence. The result of these considerations is panpsychism, the theory that consciousness truly is fundamental and ubiquitous. After that, I introduce the combination problem, the issue of how small subjects combine into bigger subjects. Priority cosmopsychism is then offered as a possible way of avoiding the combination problem. I then argue against priority cosmopsychism, claiming instead that we should remain panpsychists. I then move on to suggest a solution to the combination problem based on a discussion of syntactic and semantic information. I argue that information can be used to explain how small subjects bond to form bigger subjects. The final result is an informational form of panpsychism.
    [Show full text]