DOCSLIB.ORG

Diss Formatted

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Diss Formatted © 2013 Justin Marc Remhof NIETZSCHE’S RECONCEPTION OF SCIENCE: OVERCOMING NIHILISM BY JUSTIN MARC REMHOF DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2013 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee Emeritus Professor Richard Schacht, Chair Emeritus Professor William Schroeder Emeritus Professor Arthur Melnick Assistant Professor Daniel Korman ! ABSTRACT I argue that Nietzsche embraces a conception of science that falls between the two dominant interpretations in the literature. Many thinkers in the continental tradition claim that Nietzsche believes science should be either reconceived or overcome altogether by another discourse, such as art, because it is nihilistic. They maintain that Nietzsche regards science as nihilistic because it either presumes that the world is some way it is not or functions on the erroneous assumption that truth rather than art is best for humanity. By contrast, most analytic commentators contend that Nietzsche has a positive rather than nihilistic conception of science, so he does not hold that the discipline should be either reinterpreted or superseded. They claim that for Nietzsche science represents the way the world is and uncovers truths that are important for humankind. I argue for the middle position that Nietzsche has a positive conception of science, scientific constructivism, which he develops in response to nihilistic conceptions of science, particularly scientific realism. Scientific constructivism helps overcome nihilism because it correctly captures the nature of scientific investigation. Affirming constructivism thus allows inquirers to commit to the scientific project without deceiving themselves about the nature of the objects of inquiry. ""!! ! ! TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTERPRETING NIETZSCHE AND SCIENCE………………………………...1 CHAPTER 2: NIHILISM AND SCIENCE……………………………..……………………….44 CHAPTER 3: WILL TO POWER AND SCIENCE………………………………………...…...75 CHAPTER 4: OBJECT CONSTRUCTIVISM………..……………………………………….132 CHAPTER 5: SCIENTIFIC CONSTRUCTIVISM……………………………………………177 CHAPTER 6: LIFE-AFFIRMING SCIENCE. ……………………………………...…………226 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………255 """!! ! CHAPTER 1 INTERPRETING NIETZSCHE AND SCIENCE There is a genuine puzzle over how to understand Nietzsche’s conception of science. Dominant interpretations form two opposing views. One approach argues that Nietzsche has a negative opinion of the scientific discipline, and the other that he has a positive view. My claim is that Nietzsche embraces a conception of science between these two positions; namely, that he has a positive conception that responds to worries about conceptions he regards as negative. Before examining various reasons for holding each of the dominant views, it is important briefly to discuss which of Nietzsche’s writings discuss science, the context in which he discusses science, and major interpretive questions concerning Nietzsche’s conception of science. ‘Science’ is a translation of ‘Wissenschaft’, which refers to any critical discipline that involves systematic teaching and research, including the humanities and natural sciences. Nietzsche talks about science in all publications, all unpublished essays, and consistently throughout his early to late notes. There are two ways to distinguish the writings on science that I focus on in this project. First, I primarily pay attention to Nietzsche’s thoughts after the publication of The Birth of Tragedy (1872), beginning with Human, all too Human (1878) and continuing through subsequent works. In BT Nietzsche attacks science as a defective means for understanding the true nature of reality, whereas, I argue below, from HH onward Nietzsche abandons this commitment. Hence Nietzsche’s conception of science in BT is not his considered position. The second way to distinguish the writings I emphasize concerns the difference between science as a practice and scientific theory. Some of Nietzsche’s passages target science as a practical discipline, that is, the lives, motives, and affirmations of scientific inquirers. Other 1 ! passages target the theoretical dimension of science, that is, the ontological, epistemological, and semantic assumptions and implications of scientific ways of thinking. Major places where Nietzsche discusses the practical dimension of science include the first part of Human, all too Human (“Of First and Last Things”), the fourth part of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and the sixth part of Beyond Good and Evil (“We Scholars [Wir Gelehrten]”). A reoccurring theme in these passages is that scientific inquirers often fail to have the necessary qualities of character for diagnosing and treating major problems for humanity – specifically the lack of positive ideals and the advent of nihilism. Nietzsche proposes that we should instead try to cultivate a new type of philosopher for such guidance. These sorts of practical issues do not concern me in this project. I am interested in Nietzsche’s conception of the theoretical dimensions of science. Discussions of these issues primarily occur in the first part of Human, all too Human (“Of First and Last Things”); all five books of The Gay Science (books 1-4: 1882; book 5: 1887); the first two parts of Beyond Good and Evil (1886) (“On the Prejudices of Philosophers,” “The Free Spirit”); the 1886 preface to The Birth of Tragedy (“Attempt at a Self-Criticism”); the third essay of On the Genealogy of Morals (1887) (“What is the Meaning of Ascetic Ideals?”); the third, fourth, and sixth parts of Twilight of the Idols (1889) (“‘Reason’ in Philosophy,” “How the ‘Real World’ Finally Became a Fable,” “The Four Great Errors”); and many of Nietzsche’s late notebook entries. I address the overall relations between the positions presented in these works later in the chapter. Having a proper understanding of the motivations behind the two dominant views of Nietzsche’s conception of science, however, requires making some general comments on Nietzsche’s understanding of the relation between science, art, and nihilism. ! ! ! 2! ! Nietzsche’s view of science generally unfolds as follows. In BT he argues that art, not science, provides the best means for grasping the true nature of reality. Thus, in BT he has a generally negative attitude toward the discipline. In HH, however, Nietzsche abandons this position and gives high praise to science for its ability to understand reality better than any other discourse. This positive attitude continues through the first publication of GS (Books 1-4) and BGE. But in the third essay of GM – arguably the most controversial essay in Nietzsche’s corpus – Nietzsche effectively claims that science is nihilistic. He supports this view by citing passages from the fifth book of GS, which is added in 1886, as well as the 1886 preface to BT. Nietzsche appears to return to having a negative view of the scientific discipline. Yet there is little evidence that he considers science to be nihilistic in works published after GM (despite lingering skepticism in the notebooks). In TI, for example, he echoes his position from HH that science is the means by which we grasp the true nature of reality. How are we to understand Nietzsche’s conception of science? Overall, does he have a positive or negative view of the discipline? If he has a positive view, how do we explain his attack on science in GM? And what might it mean to say science can deliver the true nature of reality? If he has a negative view, how do we treat his reverence for science in pre- and post-GM works? And what does it mean to say science is nihilistic? Perhaps Nietzsche does not have an overall positive or negative view of the scientific discipline. Does he simply alternate between opposing attitudes throughout his corpus? Or it could be the case that Nietzsche has both a positive and negative view. If so, then what does the divide consist in, and are these attitudes compatible? This chapter examines the positive and negative readings of Nietzsche’s conception of science, raises problems for each, and suggests Nietzsche has both a positive and negative view – ! ! ! 3! ! a positive conception that responds to those that are negative. Later, I consider and discard the interpretation that Nietzsche’s attitude toward science simply changes from one work to the next. 1.1 TWO APPROACHES The two dominant readings of Nietzsche’s conception of science can be specified as follows. Call the Skeptical View the position that Nietzsche thinks science should be either reconceived or superseded by another discourse, such as art, because it is nihilistic. Call the Positive View the opposing position that Nietzsche does not think science is nihilistic, so it should neither be reinterpreted nor overcome.1 This section briefly describes these readings by presenting two prominent reasons each gives for supporting their view.2 Those who believe Nietzsche has a fundamentally positive view of science are generally analytic thinkers, such as John T. Wilcox (1982), Richard Schacht (1983, 1995, forthcoming), Maudemarie Clark (1990, 1998), Clark and David Dudrick (2006), Brian Leiter (1994, 1998, 2002), R. Lanier Anderson (1996), Michael Green (2000), Steven Hales and Rex Welshon (2000), John Richardson (2004), and Tsarnia Doyle (2009). Clark and Leiter have had a strong influence on contemporary Nietzsche scholarship, so I will use their positions as examples of the Positive View.3 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Optimistic Realism About Scientific Progress
    Optimistic Realism about Scientific Progress Ilkka Niiniluoto ABSTRACT: Scientific realists use the “no miracle argument” to show that the empirical and pragmatic success of science is an indicator of the ability of scientific theories to give true or truthlike representations of unobservable reality. While antirealists define scientific progress in terms of empirical success or practical problem-solving, realists characterize progress by using some truth-related criteria. This paper defends the definition of scientific progress as increasing truthlikeness or verisimilitude. Antirealists have tried to rebut realism with the “pessimistic metainduction”, but critical realists turn this argument into an optimistic view about progressive science. KEYWORDS: conceptual pluralism, fallibilism, no miracle argument, pessimistic metainduction, scientific realism, truthlikeness 1. Varieties of Scientific Realism Scientific realism as a philosophical position has (i) ontological, (ii) semantical, (iii) epistemological, (iv) theoretical, and (v) methodological aspects (see Niiniluoto 1999a; Psillos 1999). It holds that (i) at least part of reality is ontologically independent of human mind and culture. It takes (ii) truth to involve a non-epistemic relation between language and reality. It claims that (iii) knowledge about mind-independent (as well as mind-dependent) reality is possible, and that (iv) the best and deepest part of such knowledge is provided by empirically testable scientific theories. An important aim of science is (v) to find true and informative theories which postulate non-observable entities and laws to explain observable phenomena. Scientific realism became a tenable stance in the philosophy of science in the 1950s as an alternative to empiricist views which reduced theories to the observational language (Ernst Mach’s positivism) or restricted scientific knowledge to the level of observational statements by denying that theoretical statements have truth values (Pierre Duhem’s instrumentalism).
    [Show full text]
  • On Moral Understanding
    COMMENTTHE COLLEGE NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO 147 | MAY 2003 TOM WHIPPS On Moral Understanding DNA pioneers: The surviving members of the King’s team, who worked on the discovery of the structure of DNA 50 years ago, withDavid James Watson, K Levytheir Cambridge ‘rival’ at the time. From left Ray Gosling, Herbert Wilson, DNA at King’s: DepartmentJames Watson and of Maurice Philosophy Wilkins King’s College the continuing story University of London Prize for his contribution – and A day of celebrations their teams, but also to subse- quent generations of scientists at ver 600 guests attended a cant scientific discovery of the King’s. unique day of events celeb- 20th century,’ in the words of Four Nobel Laureates – Mau- Orating King’s role in the 50th Principal Professor Arthur Lucas, rice Wilkins, James Watson, Sid- anniversary of the discovery of the ‘and their research changed ney Altman and Tim Hunt – double helix structure of DNA on the world’. attended the event which was so 22 April. The day paid tribute not only to oversubscribed that the proceed- Scientists at King’s played a King’s DNA pioneers Rosalind ings were relayed by video link to fundamental role in this momen- Franklin and Maurice Wilkins – tous discovery – ‘the most signifi- who went onto win the Nobel continued on page 2 2 Funding news | 3 Peace Operations Review | 5 Widening participation | 8 25 years of Anglo-French law | 11 Margaret Atwood at King’s | 12 Susan Gibson wins Rosalind Franklin Award | 15 Focus: School of Law | 16 Research news | 18 Books | 19 KCLSU election results | 20 Arts abcdef U N I V E R S I T Y O F L O N D O N A C C O M M O D A T I O N O F F I C E ACCOMMODATION INFORMATION - FINDING SOMEWHERE TO LIVE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy WARNING: Under no circumstances inshould the this University document be of taken London as providing legal advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Models, Perspectives, and Scientific Realism
    MODELS, PERSPECTIVES, AND SCIENTIFIC REALISM: ON RONALD GIERE'S PERSPECTIVAL REALISM A thesis submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Brian R. Huth May, 2014 Thesis written by Brian R. Huth B.A., Kent State University 2012 M.A., Kent State University 2014 Approved by Frank X. Ryan, Advisor Linda Williams, Chair, Department of Philosophy James L. Blank, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................. iv INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER I. FROM THE RECEIVED VIEW TO THE MODEL-THEORETIC VIEW........................................................................................................... 7 Section 1.1.................................................................................................... 9 Section 1.2.................................................................................................... 16 II. RONALD GIERE'S CONSTRUCTIVISM AND PERSPECTIVAL REALISM.................................................................................................... 25 Section 2.1.................................................................................................... 25 Section 2.2.................................................................................................... 31 Section 2.3...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The American Philosophical Association PACIFIC DIVISION EIGHTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL MEETING PROGRAM
    The American Philosophical Association PACIFIC DIVISION EIGHTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL MEETING PROGRAM WESTIN GASLAMP QUARTER AND U.S. GRANT HOTEL SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 16 – 20, 2014 : new books for spring HUMOR AND THE GOOD LIFE REPRODUCTION, RACE, IN MODERN PHILOSOPHY AND GENDER IN PHILOSOPHY Shaftesbury, Hamann, Kierkegaard AND THE EARLY LIFE SCIENCES Lydia B. Amir Susanne Lettow, editor (February) (March) PHILOSOPHIZING AD INFINITUM LEO STRAUSS AND THE CRISIS infinite Nature, infinite Philosophy OF RATIONALISM Marcel Conche Another Reason, Another Enlightenment Laurent Ledoux and Corine Pelluchon Herman G. Bonne, translators Robert Howse, translator Foreword by J. Baird Callicott (February) (June) NIHILISM AND METAPHYSICS HABITATIONS OF THE VEIL The Third Voyage Metaphor and the Poetics of Black Being Vittorio Possenti in African American Literature Daniel B. Gallagher, translator Rebecka Rutledge Fisher Foreword by Brian Schroeder (May) (April) THE LAWS OF THE SPIRIT LACan’s etHics and nietzscHe’s A Hegelian Theory of Justice CRITIQUE OF PLATONISM Shannon Hoff Tim Themi (April) (May) AFTER LEO STRAUSS EMPLOTTING VIRTUE New Directions in Platonic A Narrative Approach Political Philosophy to Environmental Virtue Ethics Tucker Landy Brian Treanor (June) (June) LIVING ALTERITIES FEMINIST PHENOMENOLOGY Phenomenology, Embodiment, and Race AND MEDICINE Emily S. Lee, editor Kristin Zeiler and (April) Lisa Folkmarson Käll, editors (April) LUCE IRIGARAY’s PHenomenoLOGY OF FEMININE BEING Please visit our website for information Virpi Lehtinen on our philosophy journals. (June) SPECIAL EVENTS Only registrants are entitled to attend the reception on April 17 at no additional charge. Non-registrants, such as spouses, partners, or family members of meeting attendees, who wish to accompany a registrant to this reception must purchase a $10 guest ticket; guest tickets are available at the reception door as well as in advance at the registration desk.
    [Show full text]
  • What Would It Mean to Directly Observe Electrons?
    WHAT WOULD IT MEAN TO DIRECTLY OBSERVE ELECTRONS? DAVID MITSUO NIXON University of Washington Abstract In this paper it is argued that a proper understanding of the justification of perceptual beliefs leaves open the possibility that normal humans, unaided by microscopes, could genuinely know, by direct observation, of the existence of a theoretical entity like an electron. A particular theory of justification called perceptual responsibilism is presented. If successful, this kind of view would undercut one line of argument that has been given (for example, by Bas van Fraassen) in support of scientific anti-realism. Various objections to the idea that electrons can be directly observed are also considered. Scientific anti-realism is, roughly, the view that we are not justified in believing in the existence of theoretical entities—of which I take elec- trons to be a paradigm example. Such a view obviously relies on the distinction between things that are directly observable and things that are not, where theoretical entities would fall into the latter category. In this paper I will argue against this distinction—at least in the sense in which it is required by scientific anti-realism. I will argue that (so- called) theoretical entities like electrons can be observed by normal humans. In taking aim at scientific anti-realism, I will primarily have in mind its leading proponent, Bas van Fraassen. But it is important to keep in mind that while my narrow concern in this paper is the issue of the justification of observational beliefs, van Fraassen’s constructive em- piricism encompasses much more than that.
    [Show full text]
  • “Karl Jaspers Forum” Update 17 (4-1-2006) Historical
    THE “KARL JASPERS FORUM” UPDATE 17 (4-1-2006) HISTORICAL EXAMPLE FOR GOING BEYOND EPISTEMIC NAUGHT THINKING Notation: This week Herbert’s Website includes his Comment to Mr. Barros, and a Comment from Sid Barnett. None make reference to Jaspers. None can find an appropriate connection with Jaspers. FOR QUICK REFERENCE: 1. Herbert avoids historical reality by naught “0” bubbles 1.3. Historical example of naught thinking—David Hume and a Scottish movement 2. Sid Barnett’s Radical Constructivism resurgence 3. David Hume as cypher of meaning and the Vanity Press 1. Herbert avoids Complicated Historical analysis--This week (4-1-2006) Herbert informs Mr. Rodrigo Barros Gewehr that his, Herbert’s, presentations are to be viewed as primarily epistemological rather than from “the ethical point”. What Herbert is under compulsion to do here is place an absolute barrier between traditional values and his constructionism’s (radical constructivism) formulae. Herbert uses the word epistemology to imply that he has reduced truth standards to a system that because systematic it must be yielded to as science. In effect it is a complex tool to escape real situations, i.e., to avoid the complicated relativity of complex reality. It is a system encompassed by a know- it-all metaphysic. Herbert’s superficial epistemological system is modifiable more by the word ideal rather than the word real. Epistemological idealism has at least ten modifications and realistic epistemology has at least a dozen when subjected to detailed analysis (such as the study done by Celestine N. Bittle in Reality and the Mind). It is further complicated by a variety of categorizations depending on whether for some special or general frame of reference one comes down on the real-ideal or the ideal-real side of the bounding bouncing epistemological…bubble.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontological, Epistemological, and Methodological Positions
    ONTOLOGICAL, EPISTEMOLOGICAL, AND METHODOLOGICAL POSITIONS James Ladyman INTRODUCTION This chapter summarises various important ontological, epistemological and methodological issues in the philosophy of science. Ontology is the theory of what exists and is the foremost concern of metaphysics, which is the study of the most fundamental questions about being and the nature of reality. Ontological issues in the philosophy of science may be specific to a particular special science, such as questions about the ontological status of biological species, or they may be more general, such as whether or not there are objective natural kinds. In the history of science ontological issues have often been of supreme importance; for example, whether or not atoms exist was a question that occupied many scientists in the nineteenth century. In what follows, some fundamental questions of ontology are discussed, some of which, such as those concerning laws of nature, are also ad- dressed in analytic metaphysics. A number of these issues also relate to debates in the foundations of physics about the ontological implications of our best physical theories. Readers who wish to know more about the philosophy of space and time and the nature of matter and motion should consult the companion volume to this on the philosophy of physics. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge and as such is concerned with such matters as the analysis of knowledge and its relationship to belief and truth, the theory of justification, and how to respond to the challenge of local scepticism, say about the past, or global scepticism, which suggests that there is no knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • Modal Rationalism and Constructive Realism
    Modal Rationalism and Constructive Realism Modal Rationalism and Constructive Realism: Models and their Modality Abstract William M. Kallfelz 1 June 23, 2010 I present a case for a rapprochement between aspects of rationalism and scientific realism, by way of a general framework employing modal epistemology and elements of 2-dimensional semantics (2DS). My overall argument strategy is meta-inductive: The bulk of this paper establishes a “base case,” i.e., a concretely constructive example by which I demonstrate this linkage. The base case or constructive example acts as the exemplar for generating, in a constructively ‘bottom-up’ fashion, a more generally rigorous case for rationalism-realism qua modal epistemology. The exemple I choose in D. Chalmers’ (2002) modal rationalism and R. Giere’s (1985, 1988) constructive realism. I show by way of a thorough analysis how Giere’s claims concerning modal scope are characterized as instances of Chalmers’ modal rationalism, both weak and strong. In essence, as I demonstrate via Chalmers’ notions, ceteris paribus the constructive realist ultimately opts for a comparatively wider gate, characterized by modal reasoning, to lead from the rooms of conceivability qua thought experiments and models, to the pastures of metaphysical possibility. Chalmers likewise tries to erect such a wider gate, in his general conceivability- possibility theses. Anti-realists, on the other hand, see a narrower passage and my contention herein is that they suffer from modal myopia, which hopefully the ‘corrective vision’ of Chalmers’ modal rationalism can restore. In the introduction and concluding sections I sketch out suggestions of constructing ‘inductive steps’ from my base case, to generate more extensively general claims regarding realism qua rationalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Realist and Anti-Realist Approaches in Philosophy of Science: Perspective and Representational Pluralism in Scientific Discovery
    Realist and Anti-Realist Approaches in Philosophy of Science: Perspective and Representational Pluralism in Scientific Discovery Mark Coleman Department of Philosophy School of Humanities, Faculty of Arts The University of Adelaide Submitted for the degree of Master of Philosophy August 2016 Scientific Realism versus Anti-realism Mark Coleman 1 Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Abstract 4 Thesis Declaration 5 Acknowledgements 6 Chapter 1 7 Scientific Realism versus Anti-Realism, an Introduction 7 Preamble 7 1.1 An overview of scientific realism 10 1.2 Anti-realism 12 1.3 Some realist responses 16 1.4 Variations and preliminary conclusions 18 Chapter 2 21 Anti-Realism: van Fraassen and His Critics 21 2.1 van Fraassen’s ‘arguments concerning scientific realism’ 21 2.1.1 van Fraassen’s account of realism 22 2.1.2 Constructive empiricism 23 2.1.3 van Fraassen on “The Theory/Observation ‘Dichotomy’” and the observable/unobservable distinction 26 2.1.4 van Fraassen on inference to the best explanation 28 2.2 Responses to van Fraassen 31 2.2.1 Observable versus unobservable 33 2.2.2 Churchland on observation, empirical adequacy and ontological commitment 36 2.2.3 van Fraassen, the microscope, and ‘public hallucinations’ 41 2.2.4 Underdetermination 43 2.2.5 Boyd’s defence of realism: underdetermination and the importance of theoretical induction 46 2.2.6 Ladyman and Ross, and Ellis on underdetermination 50 2.2.7 Epistemic virtues and theory evaluation: Churchland on beliefworthiness and the super-empirical virtues 52 2.3 Giere’s ‘modest’
    [Show full text]
  • 110 007 011-27666629 Ph.D. (PHILOSOPHY)
    University Faculty Details Page on DU Web-site Title Prof./Dr./Mr./Ms. First RAVINDRA Last SINGH Photograph Dr Name MAHILAL Name Designation ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR Department PHILOSOPHY Address (Campus) DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, UNIVERSITY OF DELHI, DELHI – 110 007 (Residence) Phone No (Campus) 011-27666629 (Residence)optional Mobile Fax Email [email protected]; [email protected] Web-Page Education Subject Institution Year Details Ph.D. PANJAB Thesis topic: The Problem of (PHILOSOPHY) UNIVERSITY, Consciousness, CHANDIGARH Intersubjectivity, and Historicity in the Philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre M.A. UNIVERSITY OF 1986 Subjects: PHILOSOPHY (PHILOSOPHY) POONA, PUNE B.Sc. (Physics) FERGUSSON 1983 Subjects: PHYSICS COLLEGE, PUNE Career Profile Organisation / Institution Designation Duration Role UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ASSOCIATE 23 FEB 2006 TEACHING & RESEAERCH PROFESSOR TO TILL DATE UNIVERSITY OF DELHI READER FROM 23FEB TEACHING & RESEAERCH 2003 TO 22 FEB 2006 UNIVERSITY OF DELHI SENIOR FROM 27 TEACHING & RESEAERCH LECTURER JULY 1998 TO 22 FEB 2003 UNIVERSITY OF DELHI LECTURER FROM 22 FEB TEACHING & RESEAERCH 1993 TO 27 JULY 1998 Research Interests / Specialization PHILOSOPHY OF MIND AND CONSCIOUSNESS; CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY Teaching Experience ( Subjects/Courses Taught) www.du.ac.in Page 1 26 PLUS YEARS Courses Taught: 2018-2019: Greek Philosophy, Theories of Consciousness Courses Taught: 2017-18 Session Course: Greek Philosophy, Theories of Consciousness and Supervision of Essay Course on Mental Representation. New Course: M.A. Greek Philosophy, Continental Philosophy I & II, Philosophy of Mind, Theories of Consciousness, Mind, Modularity and Cognition and The Feminist Thought. Old Course M.A.: Self, Subjectivity, and Otherness (Continental Philosophy) and Theories of Consciousness, Philosophical Classics (Western: Survey paper in History of Western Philosophy), Social and Political Philosophy, Theory of Knowledge (Phenomenology), Existentialism, Philosophy of Mind.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Philosophical Foundations of Psychological Measurement
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Previously Published Works Title On the philosophical foundations of psychological measurement Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/89x2c775 Authors Maul, A Torres Irribarra, D Wilson, M Publication Date 2016-02-01 DOI 10.1016/j.measurement.2015.11.001 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Measurement xxx (2015) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Measurement journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement On the philosophical foundations of psychological measurement ⇑ Andrew Maul a, , David Torres Irribarra b, Mark Wilson c a Gevirtz Graduate School of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara, United States b MIDE, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile c Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, United States article info abstract Article history: Measurement has played a central role in the development of the physical sciences and Available online xxxx engineering, and is considered by many to be a privileged method for acquiring informa- tion about the world. It is thus unsurprising that the psychological sciences have also Keywords: attempted to develop methods for measurement. However, it is not clear how the ways Educational and psychological in which psychological scientists understand measurement accord with how the concept measurement is understood in other scientific disciplines, or by the professional and general publics. In Philosophy of measurement part this may be due to the ways in which several distinct strands of thinking about scien- Philosophy of science tific inquiry (and measurement in particular) have influenced the work of psychological Empiricism Pragmatism scientists over roughly the past hundred years.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a New Model of Major Power Relations?
    China and the United States: Towards a New Model of Major Title Power Relations? Author(s) Hu, WR Citation East Asian Policy, 2015, v. 7 n. 4, p. 14-23 Issued Date 2015 URL http://hdl.handle.net/10722/234776 Electronic version of an article published as East Asian Policy, 2015, v. 7 n. 4, p. 14-23. Article DOI:10.1142/S1793930515000355 © copyright World Scientific Publishing Company - Rights http://www.worldscinet.com/eap; This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. China and the United States: Towards a New Model of Major Power Relations? HU Weixing Professor, Department of Politics & Public Administration University of Hong Kong East Asian Policy, volume 7, issue 4 (October/December 2015), pp.14-23, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/publications/files/EAP_V7N4.pdf [Abstract] The China-US disagreement over the term of “new model of major power relations” is not just about discourse, rather, it is about who will have the upper hand in defining the terms for future China-US relations. While the Chinese want to provide a new vision and an alternative to the realist discourse of future China-US relations, the Americans believe that Beijing tries to claim a position on par with the US in world affairs. A “new model of major power relations” (Xinxing Daguo Guanxi) between China and the United States was first proposed by then Vice President Xi Jinping in February 2012. For the Chinese, this term conveys a new vision for future China-US relations and an alternative to the realist discourse of power struggle between a rising power and a ruling power.
    [Show full text]