DOCSLIB.ORG

Elliott Sober Source: Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, Vol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Elliott Sober Source: Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, Vol Testability Author(s): Elliott Sober Source: Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, Vol. 73, No. 2 (Nov., 1999), pp. 47-76 Published by: American Philosophical Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3131087 Accessed: 02/09/2008 14:56 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=amphilosophical. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org TESTABILITY ElliottSober, University of Wisconsin Givenas PresidentialAddress to the CentralDivision of the AmericanPhilosophicalAssociation in New Orleans,May 1999. I Thatsome propositionsare testable,while othersare not, was a funda- mentalidea in the philosophicalprogram known as logicalempiricism. That programis now widely thought to be defunct. Quine's (1953) "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"and Hempel's (1950) "Problemsand Changesin the EmpiricistCriterion of Meaning"are among its most notableepitaphs. Yet, as we know fromMark Twain's comment on an obituarythat he once had the pleasureof readingabout himself, the reportof a death can be an exaggeration.The researchprogram that began in Vienna and Berlincontinues, even though many of the spe- cific formulationsthat came out of those circlesare flawedand need to be replaced. Philosophers of science now generally agree that confirmation theoryis a centralsubject. No one reallydoubts the importanceof under- standingwhat it takesfor a statementto be confirmedor disconfirmed by an observation.There also is wide consensusthat the design of ex- perimentsis an importantissue, not just for philosophers,but for sci- entists as well. If a scientist wants to test a proposition,it is important to make sure that the experimentthat is carriedout actuallybears on the propositionin question. Sometimesit is obvious whether this is the case, but at other times, subtle issues need to be sorted out to see whether this is so. The idea that some experiments really do test a proposition,while others do not, is not controversial,nor does it de- serve to be. Matters change when the question of testability is considered. Manyphilosophers of science think that there can be no "criterionof testability."'It isn't just that philosophershave so far failed to figure out what testabilityamounts to; rather,the idea is that there is no such thing. The concept of testability,like the analytic/synthetic distinc- tion, is supposedto be a vestige of a bygone age, whose untenability ? 1999APA. Proceedings and Addresses ofthe APA, 73:2. ISSN 0065-972X pp. 47-76 48 Proceedingsand Addresses of theAPA, 73:2 we celebrate by speakingof "the demise of logical empiricism."The question of what makesa propositiontestable should be rejected,not answered. I think this widely sharedview is not just mistaken;it is peculiar. If it makessense to say thatan experimentdoes or does not test a given hypothesis,why is it suddenlymisguided to ask whether any experi- ment could test the hypothesis?It's as if chemiststook the view that it is perfectly sensible to say that some things have dissolved in water while othersnever did, but that it makesno sense to saythat some things arewater-soluble while othersare not. If a set of observationsprovides a test of a propositionbecause it bears relationR to that proposition, then a propositionis testablewhen it is possible for there to be a set of observationsthat bearsrelation R to the proposition.Testing is to test- ability as dissolvingis to solubility.If we can understandwhat testing is, we also should be able to understandwhat testabilityis. Mydesire to resuscitatethe notionof testabilitydoes not mean that I sympathizewith the testabilitycriterion of meaning. The epistemo- logical notion of testabilityhas nothingmuch to do with the linguistic notion of meaningfulness. The "linguistic turn" in philosophy (Bergmann1964) that logical empiricismhelped initiate was in this instance a turn down a blind alley. We need to recoverthe epistemo- logical insights that the empiricistswere trying to develop by disen- tanglingthem fromthe extraneouslinguistic lingo in which they were expressed. If a string of words has no meaning, then of course it will not express a testableproposition; for that matter,it won't express an untestableproposition, either. However,an untestablestring of words can be perfectlymeaningful. Typically, we judge whether a sentence is testable by graspingwhat it means and then seeing whether the propositionexpressed has the relevantepistemic characteristics.2 One problem that beset the testabilitytheory of meaningwas to decide which conceptof possibilityshould be used in the claimthat all meaningfulsentences must be testable.Does testabilitymean that it is logicallypossible to test a sentence, or that it is nomologicallypossible to do so, or that a test is feasiblegiven currenttechnology? This ques- tion mattersto the testabilitytheory of meaning,but it does not matter at all if we merelywant to recognizetestability as an importantepiste- mologicalconcept. It is no embarrassmentthat the phrase"possible to test"has multipleinterpretations; there is no need to say which is the right one. Perhapssome sentences can be shown to be untestableby purelylogical considerations.Others may be untestableowing just to factsabout laws of nature.Still othersmay fail to be testablefor contin- gent reasons-for example,because the testerswe have in mind have a PresidentialAddresses of the CentralDivision 49 particularspatio-temporal location, or size, or sensory system, or be- cause they lack some pertinent piece of information.Within this cat- egory of contingentlyuntestable statements, we can recognize that a statementmay shift from testable to untestable,or in the opposite di- rection, as our circumstanceschange. Perhapssome statementsabout the Kennedyassassination were testable shortly after the event took place, but becameuntestable subsequently. The passageof time can be an information-destroyingprocess (Sober 1988). Conversely, state- ments that once were untestablecan become testable, as knowledge changesand technologyimproves.3 Testinga hypothesisrequires that it makea predictionthat can be checkedby observation.What, then, is an observation?Just as the idea of there being a criterionof testabilityhas gone out of fashion, so too have manyphilosophers become skepticalabout the concept of obser- vation. The distinction between observationaland theoretical state- ments is supposedto be inherentlyflawed, as is the distinctionbetween observableand unobservableentities. The defects that have been ad- vertised are various-sometimes the distinctionsare said not to exist, at other times they are said to be vague, and at still other times, they are said to lack epistemologicalsignificance. Once again, I think that the negativeverdicts have been exaggerated. Hereis a simplebut importantfact abouthuman beings-we make observationsin orderto learnabout things thatwe do not observe.This is how we learnabout dinosaurs-we look at their fossil remains.This also is how we learn about quarks-we look at the measurementde- vices in our laboratories.The fact that dinosaurs,in a sense, are ob- servableentities, while quarks,in a sense, are not, is irrelevant.The point is thatwe haveactually observed neither. The fact thatwe could see a live dinosaur,if we were at the right place and time, but could not see a quark,no matterwhere we went, does not show that the evi- dence we actuallyhave supportsour beliefs aboutdinosaurs more than it supportsour beliefs about quarks(Churchland 1985). It is the dis- tinction between observedand unobservedthat pertainsto questions aboutstrength of evidence,not the distinctionbetween observableand unobservable(Sober 1993a).4 The epistemologicalsignificance of this point needs to be stated carefully. It isn't that our beliefs are immune from errorwhen they describewhat we observe,but that they are vulnerableto errorwhen they describewhat we do not observe.Our opinions in both categories are fallible. Nor is it true that all our beliefs about the things we ob- serve are betterjustified than all our beliefs aboutthe thingswe do not observe. Rather,the asymmetryis more modest. Supposewe want to 50 Proceedingsand Addresses of theAPA, 73:2 test a dinosaurfossil in orderto makean inferenceabout the dinosaur's diet. Ourinference relies on the existence of a causalchain-fromX to Y toZ. X is the dinosaur'sdiet, Y is the state of the dinosaur'sbones while it was alive, and Z is the presentstate of the fossil. The relation- ship of X to Yto Z is probabilistic.The dinosaur'sdiet
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Utilitarianism & the Afterlife
    Utilitarianism & the Afterlife The paradox of a pleasant hereafter Betsy McCall The goal of Utilitarianism is to lay out a moral philosophy to provide us a way of living, and a way of making difficult moral choices correctly(Mill, 2001) in circumstances which are uncommon enough that experience has not, or cannot, prepare us for the solution. But in doing so, Utilitarianism must confront the same moral challenges confronted by all moral philosophies, including the consequences of belief in the afterlife(Hasker, 2005). The afterlife has provided a complex moral challenge for many moral philosophical frameworks throughout the ages, from Buddhism to Christianity. Buddhism posits that life is suffering, and that the ultimate goal of living is really to escape living altogether by achieving nirvana, or at least, a better life in the next reincarnation(Becker, 1993). Christianity similarly puts this life into a comparison with another better alternative, in this case, the possibility of an infinitely better afterlife in heaven with god and the angels(Pohle, 1920). In both cases, the philosophical frameworks have been forced to incorporate specific prohibitions against suicide in order to avoid the apparently logical conclusion that death is preferable to life, and we would do well to get ourselves there as quickly as possible. Mill, in arguing for Utilitarianism, does not specifically address this question, perhaps because Mill himself gave the afterlife little personal credence(Wilson, 2009). However, writing to a largely Christian Western audience, like Christianity, and a deep-seated historical affinity for belief in reincarnation(Haraldsson, 2005), Mill and his followers must be prepared to address this potential concern.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundations of Nursing Science 9781284041347 CH01.Indd Page 2 10/23/13 10:44 AM Ff-446 /207/JB00090/Work/Indd
    9781284041347_CH01.indd Page 1 10/23/13 10:44 AM ff-446 /207/JB00090/work/indd © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION PART 1 Foundations of Nursing Science 9781284041347_CH01.indd Page 2 10/23/13 10:44 AM ff-446 /207/JB00090/work/indd © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION 9781284041347_CH01.indd Page 3 10/23/13 10:44 AM ff-446 /207/JB00090/work/indd © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION CHAPTER Philosophy of Science: An Introduction 1 E. Carol Polifroni Introduction A philosophy of science is a perspective—a lens, a way one views the world, and, in the case of advanced practice nurses, the viewpoint the nurse acts from in every encounter with a patient, family, or group. A person’s philosophy of science cre- ates the frame on a picture—a message that becomes a paradigm and a point of reference. Each individual’s philosophy of science will permit some things to be seen and cause others to be blocked. It allows people to be open to some thoughts and potentially keeps them closed to others. A philosophy will deem some ideas correct, others inconsistent, and some simply wrong. While philosophy of sci- ence is not meant to be viewed as a black or white proposition, it does provide perspectives that include some ideas and thoughts and, therefore, it must neces- sarily exclude others. The important key is to ensure that the ideas and thoughts within a given philosophy remain consistent with one another, rather than being in opposition.
    [Show full text]
  • The Synchronicity of Hope and Enhanced Quality of Life in Terminal Cancer
    University of Central Florida STARS Honors Undergraduate Theses UCF Theses and Dissertations 2016 The Synchronicity of Hope and Enhanced Quality of Life in Terminal Cancer Brianna M. Terry University of Central Florida Part of the Nursing Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the UCF Theses and Dissertations at STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Undergraduate Theses by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Terry, Brianna M., "The Synchronicity of Hope and Enhanced Quality of Life in Terminal Cancer" (2016). Honors Undergraduate Theses. 75. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses/75 THE SYNCHRONICITY OF HOPE AND ENHANCED QUALITY OF LIFE IN TERMINAL CANCER by BRIANNA TERRY A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Honors in the Major Program in Nursing in the College of Nursing and in the Burnett Honors College at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Summer Term, 2016 Thesis Chair: Dr. Susan Chase Abstract Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States and a leading cause of death worldwide. The rate of mortality is currently approximately 171.2 out of every 100,000 individuals with a terminal cancer diagnosis annually. Individuals with terminal cancer diagnoses facing probable mortality utilize various coping mechanisms or internal resources in an attempt to maintain an internal sense of well-being, commonly referred to as quality of life (QOL).
    [Show full text]
  • Why Terms Matter to Biological Theories: the Term “Origin” As Used by Darwin
    Bionomina, 1: 58–60 (2010) ISSN 1179-7649 (print edition) www.mapress.com/bionomina/ Correspondence BIONOMINA Copyright © 2010 • Magnolia Press ISSN 1179-7657 (online edition) Why terms matter to biological theories: the term “origin” as used by Darwin Thierry HOQUET Département de Philosophie, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, 200 Avenue de la République, 92001 Nanterre Cedex, France. <[email protected]>. Everybody now understands what Darwin meant when he published his epoch-making book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of favoured Races in the Struggle for life (1859). He, of course, meant evolution, i.e., the transformation of animals and plants, chance modifications, and speciation. Nevertheless, the very notion of “evolution” has aroused as much confusion as it has debate: some historians tend to suggest that Darwin intentionally avoided using the term, since it was supposedly full of progressive or embryological connotations; others claim that Darwin constantly employed the word (after all, they argue, the word “evolved” is the last one of the book). This disagreement regarding the supposed absence or presence of the term “evolution” is more than a sterile academic exercise: what is at stake in this debate is the very meaning of Darwin’s theory, as well as its relation to the contingent notions of “progress” and “development”. Darwin’s allegedly crystal-clear title is in fact perhaps the most commented part of the book. Ever since Darwin’s book first appeared, readers claimed that the book did not match its title. St. John Mivart suggested that the right question was not the “origin” but the “genesis” of species (1871); Edward Drinker Cope promoted the “origin of genera” and the “origin of the fittest” (1887); Theodor Eimer took up the question of the origin of species, but emphasized inheritance of acquired characters instead of natural selection (1888).
    [Show full text]
  • Contrastive Empiricism
    Elliott Sober Contrastive Empiricism I Despite what Hegel may have said, syntheses have not been very successful in philosophical theorizing. Typically, what happens when you combine a thesis and an antithesis is that you get a mishmash, or maybe just a contradiction. For example, in the philosophy of mathematics, formalism says that mathematical truths are true in virtue of the way we manipulate symbols. Mathematical Platonism, on the other hand, holds that mathematical statements are made true by abstract objects that exist outside of space and time. What would a synthesis of these positions look like? Marks on paper are one thing, Platonic forms an­ other. Compromise may be a good idea in politics, but it looks like a bad one in philosophy. With some trepidation, I propose in this paper to go against this sound advice. Realism and empiricism have always been contradictory tendencies in the philos­ ophy of science. The view I will sketch is a synthesis, which I call Contrastive Empiricism. Realism and empiricism are incompatible, so a synthesis that merely conjoined them would be a contradiction. Rather, I propose to isolate important elements in each and show that they combine harmoniously. I will leave behind what I regard as confusions and excesses. The result, I hope, will be neither con­ tradiction nor mishmash. II Empiricism is fundamentally a thesis about experience. It has two parts. First, there is the idea that experience is necessary. Second, there is the thesis that ex­ perience suffices. Necessary and sufficient for what? Usually this blank is filled in with something like: knowledge of the world outside the mind.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Bringing Real Realism Back Home: a Perspectival Slant Michela Massimi
    Bringing real realism back home: a perspectival slant Michela Massimi School of Philosophy, Psychology, and Language Sciences University of Edinburgh [email protected] 1. Introduction When it comes to debates on realism in science, Philip Kitcher’s Real Realism: The Galilean Strategy (henceforth abbreviated as RR) occupies its well-deserved place among my top five must-read articles published in the past forty years or so on the topic (alongside Putnam’s What is realism?; Boyd’s Realism, anti-foundationalism and the enthusiasm for Natural Kinds; Laudan’s A refutation of convergent realism; and Psillos’ The present state of the scientific realism debate). Personal as this top-five list may be, there is no doubt that Real Realism has ushered in a silent revolution. Without much fanfare, it has shown how realism is hard to resist because it “begins at home” and “it never ventures into the metaphysical never-never- lands to which antirealists are so keen to banish their opponents” (RR, p. 191). Kitcher has taught us how realism began with homely considerations such as those used by Galileo to persuade the Venetians about the reliability of his telescope to spot ships approaching the harbor. The following step from ‘being a reliable naval instrument’ to ‘being a reliable instrument, in general’—capable of revealing the craters of the Moon, the satellites of Jupiter, and the phases of Venus—was a short one. The Galilean strategy that Kitcher has so admirably defended in Real Realism against both empiricism and constructivism (in their respective semantic and epistemic forms) entice us to a “homely line of thought”, and warns us against any “Grand Metaphysical Conclusions”.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing the Researchable Problem
    © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION CHAPTER © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett2 Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Developing the © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONResearchableNOT Problem FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION © echo3005/ShutterStock, Inc. © echo3005/ShutterStock, © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Objectives © Jones & BartlettUpon completion Learning, of thisLLC chapter, the reader should© Jonesbe prepared & Bartlett to: Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE 1.OR Discuss DISTRIBUTION the elements needed to formulateNOT aFOR research SALE ques- OR DISTRIBUTION tion, specifi cally discussing the PICOT process of developing a research question. 2. Utilize sample scenarios to formulate suitable research questions. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, 3.LLC Discuss the development© of Jones a testable & hypothesis.Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION4. Describe the diff erent categoriesNOT FOR of hypotheses:SALE OR research DISTRIBUTION vs. sta- tistical, directional vs. nondirectional. 5. Determine when it would be most appropriate to utilize a research question and when it would be most appropriate to uti- © Joneslize a& hypothesis. Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT6. FORDiscuss SALE the diff OR erence DISTRIBUTION between a directional hypothesisNOT and FORa SALE OR DISTRIBUTION nondirectional hypothesis. 7. Discuss the diff erence between a research hypothesis and a sta- tistical hypothesis. © Jones & Bartlett8.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Science Association
    Philosophy of Science Association Testability and Meaning--Continued Author(s): Rudolf Carnap Source: Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Jan., 1937), pp. 1-40 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/184580 Accessed: 22/09/2008 10:53 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Philosophy of Science Association and The University of Chicago Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy of Science.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origin of Altruism
    book reviews The origin of altruism Unto Others: The Evolution and about? I think the argument is largely seman- degree of relatedness. So we have a single Psychology of Unselfish Behavior tic, and could not be settled by observation. model, but two ways of analysing it. by Elliott Sober and David Sloan Wilson Two examples will make this clearer. More briefly, here is a second example. Harvard University Press: 1998. Pp. 394. First, consider Wilson’s ‘trait group’ Evolutionary game theory was first devel- $29.95, £19.95 model, first published in 1975 but still very oped to explain the ritualistic nature of ani- John Maynard Smith much part of his thinking. A population is mal fights. This had often been explained8 in divided into trait groups, and selection acts terms of the ‘good of the species’: it seemed It is obvious that the parts of organisms have upon them. The members then disperse and desirable to George Price and myself to specific functions. Since Darwin, this has mate randomly, and their offspring come attempt an explanation in terms of individ- been explained by natural selection, but together again in trait groups. There are two ual selection. Sober and Wilson reconsider what is the target of selection? Should indi- kinds of individual: altruists, who benefit (in this model. They come to exactly the same vidual organisms be thought of as the units terms of fitness) each of their fellow group conclusions that we reached, but argue that it of selection, or must one also consider levels members to a degree b, at a cost to themselves is a case of group selection.
    [Show full text]
  • Levitt Sample.Qxd
    CHAPTER 1 Psychological Research The Whys and Hows of the Scientific Method CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AS YOU READ CHAPTER 1 • Why do psychologists use the scientific method? • How do psychologists use the scientific method? • What are the canons of the scientific method? • What is the difference between basic and applied research? • How do basic and applied research interact to increase our knowledge about behavior? As an instructor of an introductory psychology course for psychology majors, I ask my first-semester freshman students the question “What is a psychologist?” At the beginning of the semester, students typically say that a psychologist listens to other people’s problems to help them live happier lives. By the end of the semester and their first college course in psychology, these same students will respond that a psychologist studies behavior through research. These students have learned that psychology is a science that investigates behav - ior, mental processes, and their causes. That is what this book is about: how psychologists use the scientific method to observe and understand behavior and mental processes. The goal of this text is to give you a step-by-step approach to designing research in psy - chology, from the purpose of research (discussed in this chapter) and the types of questions psychologists ask about behavior, to the methods psychologists use to observe and under - stand behavior and describe their findings to others in the field. WHY PSYCHOLOGISTS CONDUCT RESEARCH Think about how you know the things you know. How do you know the earth is round? How do you know it is September? How do you know that there is a poverty crisis in some parts of Africa? There are probably many ways that you know these things.
    [Show full text]
  • DANIEL DENNETT and the SCIENCE of RELIGION Richard F
    DANIEL DENNETT AND THE SCIENCE OF RELIGION Richard F. Green Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Minnesota-Duluth Duluth, MN 55812 ABSTRACT Daniel Dennett (2006) recently published a book, “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon,” which advocates the scientific study of religion. Dennett is a philosopher with wide-ranging interests including evolution and cognitive psychology. This talk is basically a review of Dennett’s religion book, but it will include comments about other work about religion, some mentioned by Dennett and some not. I will begin by describing my personal interest in religion and philosophy, including some recent reading. Then I will comment about the study of religion, including the scientific study of religion. Then I will describe some of Dennett’s ideas about religion. I will conclude by trying outlining the ideas that should be considered in order to understand religion. This talk is mostly about ideas, particularly religious beliefs, but not so much churches, creeds or religious practices. These other aspects of religion are important, and are the subject of study by a number of disciplines. I will mention some of the ways that people have studied religion, mainly to provide context for the particular ideas that I want to emphasize. I share Dennett’s reticence about defining religion. I will offer several definitions of religion, but religion is probably better defined by example than by attempting to specify its essence. A particular example of a religion is Christianity, even more particularly, Roman Catholicism. MOTIVATION My interest in philosophy and religion I. Beginnings I read a few books about religion and philosophy when I was in high school and imagined that college would be full of people arguing about religion and philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Alienation of Reason a HISTORY of POSITIVIST THOUGHT .,....O by Leszek Kolakowski
    The Alienation of Reason A HISTORY OF POSITIVIST THOUGHT .,....o by Leszek Kolakowski Translated by Norbert Guterman DOUBLEOAY a COMPANY, INC. GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 1968 Contents Preface V ONE. An Over-all View of Positivism TWO. Positivism Down to David Hume II THREE. Auguste Comte: Positivism in the Romantic Age 47 FOUR. Positivism Triumphant 73 FIVE. Positivism at the Turn of the Ccntury 104 SIX. Conventionalism-Destruction of the Concept of Fact 134 SEVEN. Pragmatism and Positivism 154 EIGHT. Logical Empiricism: A Scientistic Defense of Threatened Gvilization 174 Conclusion 207 Index 221 8 nIE ALIENATION Oll' REASON sense, i.e„ to the cxtent that they teil us what opcrations arc or arc not effcctive in achicving a desircd end. Examplcs of such tcchnical judgmcnts would bc a statement to thc cff cct that we should administer pcnicillin in a case of pncumonia or one to the cffect that children ought not be threatened with a bcating if they won't cat. Such statements can, clearly, be justificd, if thcir mcaning is respectivcly that pcnicillin is an cffectivc rem­ cdy against pncumonia, and that thrcatcning children with pun­ ishmcnt to makc them cat causes charactcrological handicaps. And if wc assume tacitly that, as a rulc, it is a good thing to eure the sick and a bad thing to inflict psychic dcformation upon childrcn, the above-mcntioncd statements can be justi.fied, even though thcy do havc thc form of normative judgmcnts. But we are not to assume that any valuc assertion that we rccognizc as truc ''in itsclf," rathcr than in rclation to something eise, can bc justificd by expericnce.
    [Show full text]