DOCSLIB.ORG

A Pyrrhonian Interpretation of Hume on Assent

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Pyrrhonian Interpretation of Hume on Assent Forthcoming in Diego Machuca and Baron Reed, eds., Skepticism: From Antiquity to the Present (New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016) A Pyrrhonian Interpretation of Hume on Assent Donald L. M. Baxter 1. Introduction How is it possible for Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711–1776) to be both withering skeptic and constructive theorist? I recommend an answer like the Pyrrhonian answer to the question how it is possible to suspend all judgment yet engage in active daily life. Sextus Empiricus distinguishes two kinds of assent: one suspended across the board and one involved with daily living. The first—active endorsement—is an act of will based on appreciation of reasons; the second—passive acquiescence—is a causal effect of appearances. I suggest that Hume makes the same distinction, only he extends the sort of assent involved in the Pyrrhonian’s daily life to theoretical matters as well.1 He is a skeptic both in finding no reason to grant the one sort of assent and in being subject to the other. Understanding my suggested Hume interpretation requires understanding the Pyrrhonian distinction in Michael Frede’s way, which I will explain. To bring out the relevant features of Frede’s version, I defend it against the rival version of Myles Burnyeat. Next, I suggest that Hume’s version of the distinction is that between belief as an act “of the cogitative part of our natures” and as an act of the “sensitive” part (Treatise 1 My reading follows Popkin (1966) (on Popkin on the crucial influence of Pyrrhonism on modern philosophy in general, see Maia Neto’s chapter in this volume). See also Baxter (2006; 2008: ch. 1; 2009a; 2009b). Note that Hume does not follow the Pyrrhonians in their centrally important concern with tranquility. For a detailed discussion of Hume’s familiarity with Sextus’s works, see Fosl (1998). 2 [T] 1.4.1.8).2 Hume’s version can be fleshed out in the way I suggest by regarding it, as Dugald Stewart did, to be derived from a lengthy discussion of Ralph Cudworth’s. I then summarize how Treatise 1.4.1, “Scepticism with regard to reason,” shows both that active endorsement is never merited and that passive aquiescence cannot be avoided. Julia Annas hints at an account like the one I give, but does not develop it and ends up reading Hume as a dogmatist (Annas 2000: 276, 279). Instead, I recommend reading Hume as finding no sufficiently good reason for active endorsement of any view while yet yielding passive acquiescence in even some theoretical matters. In theorizing thus concerning the science of man, Hume remains just as much a skeptic as Sextus does in daily life, such as when avoiding precipices or engaging in religious devotions. 2. Pyrrhonian Kinds of Assent The characterization of Pyrrhonism I will give depends heavily on the work of Michael Frede (1997a; 1997b) on kinds of assent. Frede’s interpretation is a minority view; the majority view follows the interpretation of Myles Burnyeat (1997a). It will help in understanding Frede’s difficult view to contrast it with Burnyeat’s. In explaining the key difference between them, as I understand it, I’ll focus on Sextus’s Outlines of Pyrrhonism. Both Frede and Burnyeat take Sextus to have an answer to the traditional challenge to the skeptic, one famously reiterated by Hume in his Enquiry concerning Human Understanding (EHU 12.23).3 Here is the challenge: if you are utterly passive, then you will quickly perish, but if you act to preserve your life, then you must believe something, for all action requires some belief. For instance, you would not eat in response to hunger, if you did not believe that eating would relieve your hunger. This 2 I cite Hume’s Treatise by book, part, section, and paragraph. I use the text in Hume (2007). 3 challenge is generally posed by those who assume that the Pyrrhonian eschews any kind of assent. That assumption is attacked in different ways by both Frede and Burnyeat. Their attacks rely on passages from Sextus such as these: When we say that Sceptics do not hold beliefs, we do not take ‘belief’ in the sense in which some say, quite generally, that belief is acquiescing in something; for Sceptics assent to the feelings forced upon them by appearances. … Rather, we say that they do not hold beliefs in the sense in which some say that belief is assent to some unclear object of investigation in the sciences; for Pyrrhonists do not assent to anything unclear. (PH I 13)4 But the main point is this: in uttering these phrases they say what is apparent to themselves and report their own feelings without holding opinions, affirming nothing about external objects. (PH I 15) As we said before, we do not overturn anything which leads us, without our willing it, to assent in accordance with a passive appearance. (PH I 19) Remember too that we say we neither posit nor reject anything which is said dogmatically about what is unclear; for we do yield to things which passively move us and lead us necessarily to assent. (PH I 193) 3 I cite Hume’s Enquiry by section and paragraph. I use the text in Hume (2000). 4 I follow the translation by Annas and Barnes in Sextus Empiricus (2000). 4 For his interpretation, Frede distinguishes two kinds of assent. In one way, you do not assent to the view that eating relieves hunger, but in another way you do. Burnyeat does not distinguish two kinds of assent, but rather distinguishes two classes of proposition liable to assent. A rough way to make the distinction is to say that one class consists of propositions beginning with “It appears to me now that …,”5 where this phrase is used in the course of stating that something is appearing to you and describing how it appears. The other class consists of all the other propositions. Thus the Pyrrhonian who acts to relieve his hunger assents to the proposition “It appears to me now that eating relieves hunger” understood in this way, and not to the proposition “Eating relieves hunger.” In making their respective distinctions, both Frede and Burnyeat hold that there are assentings of a sort that is necessary to survival, and assentings of a sort that is not necessary to survival. It is this latter sort of assenting that is at issue in theoretical discussions about unclear matters and that the Pyrrhonian avoids. Thus one can be a Pyrrhonian without perishing. Four considerations incline me against Burnyeat’s view. Appreciating them helps one appreciate the nuances of Frede’s interpretation. It seems to me, first, that assent to “It appears to me now that eating relieves hunger,” used to state that one is being appeared to and to describe how, is not sufficient to motivate eating when one is hungry. It can only motivate eating if it leads to some kind of assent to “Eating relieves hunger.” One is motivated, generally, not by realizing how the world appears to one, but by taking some sort of stand on how the world is. So Burnyeat’s proposal does not solve the problem with survival. Perhaps Burnyeat need not say that assent to “It appears to me now that eating relieves hunger” motivates eating. 5 Or, perhaps better, propositions perspicuously paraphrased by propositions beginning with ‘It appears to 5 Rather, the appearance that prompts that report also directly motivates eating.6 However, for the direct motivation to happen, the content of the appearance must be “Eating relieves hunger.” Being moved by this appearance will be just like the kind of assent necessary for survival that Frede defends. So this defense of Burnyeat would be a concession to his opponent. It seems to me, second, that the Burnyeat interpretation is not forced by the text. True, Sextus says that the skeptics will only say “what is apparent to themselves, and report their own feelings, affirming nothing about external objects.” But I think that often the phrase “It appears that…” is not used to state and describe, but rather is used to qualify one’s assent to the proposition in its scope. If I say, “It appears to me now that eating relieves hunger,” I am assenting to “Eating relieves hunger” with reservations. Perhaps I suspect that I have not established its truth conclusively. Or, more to the point, perhaps I am just reporting the view which is striking me now—that eating relieves hunger—without making any commitments to there being any good reason to hold that view. So, when skeptics say what is apparent to themselves, they need not be unreservedly endorsing that they are appeared to a certain way; they may rather with maximum reservation be venting the view that things are that way (PH I 13, 15).7 Thus there is a natural alternative to Burnyeat’s way of interpreting Sextus’s frequent appeals to how things appear. This alternative is not exactly what Frede terms the “epistemic sense” of ‘appears’, if in that sense ‘it appears to me’ is synonymous with ‘I think’ or ‘I believe’. These locutions can sometimes express assent with reservations, but do not always me now that . .’ 6 I’m grateful to Lionel Shapiro for this suggestion. 6 express that. I am reluctant to use the word ‘belief’ to characterize assent with reservations as I elucidate it. In his earlier paper, Frede suggests that the skeptic has beliefs, though it becomes apparent that Frede is using an elastic sense of ‘belief’ that could include even an impression we don’t object to (Frede 1997a: 10, 21–22).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On Hypotheses
    On hypotheses... Andrew Chesterman MuTra, 3.10.2008 Outline • Introduction • Some conceptual analysis • Developing a hypothesis • Empirical hypotheses > examples • Interpretive hypotheses • Notes on the quality of hypotheses • Hypotheses in research designs • Notes on Johansson’s article • Some references “Hypotheses non fingo” (Isaac Newton, 1713) ‘I feign no hypotheses’ (... about the constitution of space, which might explain gravity.) >> facts, precise measurements and logical reasoning, not speculation... Darwin, Notebook 1837 Peirce: Abductive reasoning Deduction: All the beans from this bag are white. These beans are from this bag. > These beans are white. Induction: These beans are from this bag. These beans are white. [And these and...] > All the beans in the bag are white. Abduction: All the beans from this bag are white. These beans are white. > These beans are [probably] from this bag. Peirce: Abductive reasoning - Reasoning via hypotheses - A surprising observation would make sense if X were true... so X is probably true - Leads to new knowledge - Fallibility The idea of the working hypothesis is “one of the most important discoveries of modern times, which has replaced the idea of dogma and doctrine.” Aldous Huxley A hypothesis is a kind of ...............? A hypothesis is a kind of ...............? X hypothesis P Q R d e f g Definition Hypothesis: a good guess at the best answer to a question, based on the most reliable facts available; a guess that will be TESTED. Related concepts: possible co-hyponyms of “hypothesis” • assumption, claim, argument... • 䍏 testable vs 䍏 falsifiable • variable focus on testing: assumption (> not tested in a given project) claim, argument (> testable against evidence, alternatives etc) empirical hypothesis (> falsifiable) A hypothesis is also a kind of theory Popper’s model of scientific progress: Problem 1 > Tentative Theory (hypothesis) > Error Elimination (testing) > Problem 2 ..
    [Show full text]
  • The Anti-Essentialism Paper
    The New Pragmatism, Anti-essentialism, and What is Universal: It’s The Situation All The Way Down C. F. Abel Stephen F. Austin State University [email protected] The New Pragmatism, Anti-essentialism, and What is Universal: It’s The Situation All The Way Down C. F. Abel Stephen F. Austin State University [email protected] A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!" Introduction “New Pragmatism” attacks the very foundation of pragmatic thought by denying that we may ever have any definitive experience. As what we are experiencing is up for grabs, we can never know any situation that we may encounter, and we are left to ground both our knowledge and our values in our language games alone. This paper argues that this set of claims is founded on two errors, one regarding the nature of language games and the other regarding the nature of deconstruction. The “Old Pragmatism,” by way of contrast, is non-essentialist but not anti- essentialist, and it resolves the problem of how we might know “the situation,” given the subjectivity of our observations and the contingencies of our language games, by suggesting that our experiences can be understood as existing in, and constituted by, the totality of their particular instances or modes at the time of inquiry.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • A301G What Is Science?
    Astronomy 301G: Revolutionary Ideas in Science Getting Started What is Science? Reading Assignment: What’s the Matter? Readings in Physics • Foreword & Introduction • Richard Feynman (1918-1988 CE) “The Uncertainty of Science” • Aristotle (384-322 BCE) “The Science of Nature” ..... and also take a first look at Aristotle’s “Moving Things” Make an effort to formulate answers to the “Discussion Questions” at the end of each selection. (Suggestion: Look at these questions before you first read the selections.) What is Science? Science is the systematic study of the physical world. Qualification: “Science” = “Natural Science” Science is based upon observations of that world. Science is empirical and progressive. It involves the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Science attempts to explain natural phenomena. Goals and Objectives To gather information through observation and experiment To organize and systematize that knowledge To infer the the “laws of nature” which govern natural events The Domain of Science Physical Reality Science deals only with physical (“real”) objects and events, those which are either directly observable or whose existence can be inferred indirectly from observations. Observations must generally be reproducible (“witnessable”) to be considered real. (cf. ghosts, hallucinations, beliefs, ....) Note: Single (past) non-reproducible events or observations can sometimes be accepted as “real” if supported by a suitably large body of evidence. Factual Knowledge (“Data”) Information whose accuracy has been confirmed again and again by repeated observation or experiment. This “Information” can include fundamental principles, testable hypotheses, as well as directly observed events, processes and connections. The Working Assumptions of Science The Universe is Causal: Natural phenomena have natural causes which precede them.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Hume Attempting to Introduce a New, Pragmatic
    doi: 10.5007/1808-1711.2016v20n3p315 IS HUME ATTEMPTING TO INTRODUCE A NEW,PRAGMATIC CONCEPTION OF A CONTRADICTION IN HIS TREATISE? ALAN SCHWERIN Abstract. Hume’s Treatise, with its celebrated bundle theory of the self, is a significant con- tribution to the embryonic Newtonian experimental philosophy of the enlightenment. But the theory is inadequate as it stands, as the appendix to the Treatise makes clear. For this account of the self, apparently, rests on contradictory principles — propositions, fortunately, that can be reconciled, according to Hume. My paper is a critical exploration of Hume’s argument for this intriguing suggestion. Keywords: Contradiction; Aristotle; law of non-contradiction; bundle theory; labyrinth; pragmatism; self; Treatise; experimental philosophy; appendix. In general, this work is full of original thoughts that have all the merit of singularity. Bibliothèque Raisonnée 1740 The bundle theory of the self that David Hume develops in section VI of his Treatise of Human Nature in 1739 is a bold, and provocative account of a person. As might be expected, the suggestion that an individual is, “nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions” (Hume 1978, p.252) has elicited a wide range of vigorous critical responses from many concerned thinkers, philosophers and non-philosophers alike.1 Ironically enough, the charge against the theory began immediately after its formulation — by its own author! Hume is the first to point out that his innovative account of a person, that is central to his conception of personal identity, has to contend with a number of serious problems. Most importantly, as far as Hume is concerned, his Treatise view of a person is incomplete as it stands: what is required is a more robust foundation with additional, unfortunately elusive principles.
    [Show full text]
  • Hypothesis Versus Hyperthesis
    European Journal of Educational Sciences June 2014 edition Vol.1, No.2 HYPOTHESIS VERSUS HYPERTHESIS Abdul Mannan Baig, Senior Instructor, MBBS Naveed Ahmed Khan, Professor, BSc, MSc, PhD Aga Khan University, Pakistan Abstract A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, it needs to tested using scientific method(s). Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot be explained otherwise. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon, until it is rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation. Here, the use of term ‘hyperthesis’ is introduced that highlights missing link between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. It is believed that this term will be valuable in describing research that does not fit the scientific norm. Keywords: Scientific theory, hypothesis, hyperthesis Introduction Scientific explanations come at different levels, whether tackling a specific problem, or hypothesis by a single scientist, or by a community of scientists coming to agree on broad ideas over hundreds of individual experiments and studies resulting in a scientific theory. A hypothesis can be right or wrong, but a theory is supposed to be true based upon the scientific method. So, when a hypothesis has been verified to be true, it becomes a scientific theory. But is there anything in between? The precise definition of a hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In contrast, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses.
    [Show full text]
  • The Scientific Method: a Need for Something Better?
    Published June 6, 2013 as 10.3174/ajnr.A3401 PERSPECTIVES serious journals, requires that contributors fill out the standard The Scientific Method: A Need for disclosure form regarding conflict of interest proposed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and it pub- Something Better? lishes these at the end of articles.1 Like many other scientific advances, the scientific method M. Castillo, Editor-in-Chief originated in the Muslim world. About 1000 years ago, the Iraqi mathematician Ibn al-Haytham was already using it. In the West- ere is the last part of the triptych that started with the “Per- ern world, the scientific method was first welcomed by astrono- spectives” on brainstorming that was followed by the one on H mers such as Galileo and Kepler, and after the 17th century, its use verbal overshadowing. I have decided to keep this for last because became widespread. As we now know it, the scientific method it deals with and in many ways attempts to debunk the use of the dates only from the 1930s. The first step in the scientific method is scientific method as the Holy Grail of research. Needless to say, observation from which one formulates a question. From that the topic is controversial and will anger some. question, the hypothesis is generated. A hypothesis must be In the “natural sciences,” advances occur through research phrased in a way that it can be proved or disproved (“falsifiable”). that employs the scientific method. Just imagine trying to publish The so-called “null hypothesis” represents the default position. an original investigation or getting funds for a project without For example, if you are trying to prove the relationship between 2 using it! Although research in the pure (fundamental) sciences phenomena, the null hypothesis may be a statement that there is (eg, biology, physics, and chemistry) must adhere to it, investiga- no relationship between the observed phenomena.
    [Show full text]
  • Research: Hypothesis Definition
    Research: Hypothesis Definition the word hypothesis is derived form the Greek words 9 “hypo” means under 9 “tithemi” means place Under known facts of the problem to explain relationship between these ........ is a statement subject to verification ......... a guess but experienced guess based on some facts ..is a hunch, assumption, suspicion, assertion or an idea about a phenomena, relationship, or situation, the reality of truth of which one do not know a researcher calls these assumptions, assertions, statements, or hunches hypotheses and they become the basis of an inquiry. In most cases, the hypothesis will be based upon either previous studies or the researcher’s own or someone else’s observations Hypothesis is a conjectural statement of relationship between two or more variable (Kerlinger, Fried N, Foundations of Behabioural Research , 3rd edition, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1986) Definition Hypothesis is proposition, condition or principle which is assumed, perhaps without belief, in order to draw its logical consequences and by this method to test its accord with facts which are known or may be determined (Webster’s New International Dictionary of English). A tentative statement about something, the validity of which is usually unknown (Black, James A & Dean J Champion, Method and Issues in Social Research, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1976) Hypothesis is proposition that is stated is a testable form and that predicts a particular relationship between two or more variable. In other words, id we think that a relationship exists, we first state it is hypothesis and then test hypothesis in the field (Baily, Kenneth D, Methods of Social Research, 3rd edition, New York: The Free Press, 1978) Definition A hypothesis is written in such a way that it can be proven or disproven by valid and reliable data – in order to obtain these data that we perform our study (Grinnell, Richard, Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses with This Method the Dangers of Parental Affection for a Favorite Theory Can Be Circumvented
    The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses With this method the dangers of parental affection for a favorite theory can be circumvented. T. C. Chamberlin (1890) As methods of study constitute the leading theme of our session, I have chosen as a subject in measurable consonance the method of multiple working hypothesis in its application to investigation, instruction, and citizenship. There are two fundamental classes of study. The one consists in attempting to follow by close imitation the processes of previous thinkers, or to acquire by memorizing the results of their investigations. It is merely secondary, imitative, or acquisitive study. The other class is primary or creative study. In it the effort is to think independently, or at least individually, in the endeavor to discover new truth, or to make new combinations of truth, or at least to develop an individualized aggregation of truth. The endeavor is to think for one's self, whether the thinking lies wholly in the fields of previous thought or not. It is not necessary to this habit of study that the subject-material should be new; but the process of thought and its results must be individual and independent, not the mere following of previous lines of thought ending in predetermined results. The demonstration of a problem in Euclid precisely as laid down is an illustration of the former; the demonstration of the same proposition by a method of one's own or in a manner distinctively individual is an illustration of the latter; both lying entirely within the realm of the known and the old.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Major Research Paradigms
    Chapter 1 Major research paradigms Introduction The primary purpose of this text is to provide an overview of the research process and a guide to the options available to any researcher wishing to engage in that process. It has been said that too much time spent engaging in the ‘higher’ philosophical debate surrounding research limits the amount of actual research that gets done. All researchers have their work to do and ultimately it is the ‘doing’ that counts, but the debate is a fascinating one and it would be very remiss not to provide you with some level of intro- duction to it. If you find yourself reading this chapter and thinking ‘so what?’, take some time to examine the implications of a paradigm on the research process. What follows is a very brief discussion of the major research paradigms in the fields of information, communication and related disciplines. We are going to take a tour of three research paradigms: positivism, postpositivism and interpretivism. I had considered revising this for this edition but after extensive investigation into the developing discourse, I have decided that my basic belief has not been altered by these debates. There are those that lament the absence of a fourth par- adigm which covers the mixed-methods approach from this text, namely pragmatism, but try as I might I can find no philosophical underpinning for pragmatism that is not already argued within a postpositive axiology. For some this will be too much, for oth- ers too little. Those of you who want more can follow the leads at the end of the chapter; those of you who want less, please bear with me for the brief tour of the major research traditions of our dis cipline.
    [Show full text]
  • A Reliabilist Strategy for Solving the Problem of Induction by Fergus
    A Reliabilist Strategy for Solving the Problem of Induction By Fergus Dale Prien ORCID: 0000-0002-0940-9676 Dissertation Submitted in Total Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Research in Philosophy In the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies At the University of Melbourne Melbourne November 2019 Student Name: Fergus Prien Student Number: 588353 Acknowledgements There are a number of people and institutions that must be thanked for having made it possible for me to undertake this research project, and now complete it. I thank the Australian Government for supporting my research training at the University of Melbourne through the Research Training Program (RTP). I also thank the University of Melbourne and the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies in general for the opportunity to study at a great institution with learned academics who care about both the intellectual formation and general wellbeing of their students. More specifically, I would like to thank my primary supervisor, Howard Sankey, for the great multitude of hours that he has put in to both reviewing the various iterations of this dissertation (many far different from this one) and patiently helping me to think and write more critically. I have certainly grown in my scholarly ability and passion for philosophy under his supervision. I want to thank Brennan McDavid for her contribution to the supervision of my dissertation during her time at the University of Melbourne, as well as Greg Restall for agreeing to be my secondary supervisor quite late in this project. I also want to thank Brian Ellis, James Franklin, Callan Ledsham, Andrew Mullins, Xavier Symons, Brother Reginald Mary Chua, Fernando Jativa, and my fellow graduate philosophy students at the University of Melbourne who attended both or either of my seminar presentations – the feedback that I received from these people at specific points in my research certainly contributed to how I have formulated the thesis that I defend in this dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1410.3919V1 [Physics.Hist-Ph] 15 Oct 2014 Naydrcin Hn Tde O Oe Nohrwrs Symmetr a Words, Earth Other an the in Universe
    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Sufficient reason and reason enough Gustavo E. Romero Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract I offer an analysis of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and its rel- evancy for the scientific endeavour. I submit that the world is not, and cannot be, rational – only some brained beings are. The Principle of Sufficient Reason is not a necessary truth nor a physical law. It is just a guiding metanomolog- ical hypothesis justified a posteriori by its success in helping us to unveil the mechanisms that operate in Nature. Keywords Ontology · physics · explanation · causality What necessity would have stirred it up to grow later rather than earlier, beginning from nothing?...Nor will the force of conviction ever permit anything to come to be from what is not. Parmenides. 1 Introduction The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), although famously espoused and ad- vocated by rationalist philosophers such as Spinoza and Leibniz in the XVII century, has an illustrious history that pervades the whole Western thought (see Schopenhauer 2012). Anaximander is usually credited as the first thinker that invoked the PSR in philosophical reasoning on the occasion of his argu- ment for the earth to be at rest at the center of the universe. Anaximander claimed that since space is isotropic there is no reason for the earth to move in any direction. Then, it does not move. In other words, a symmetry should Instituto Argentino de Radioastronom´ıa (IAR, CCT La Plata, CONICET) C.C. No. 5, 1894, Villa Elisa, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Tel.: +54-221-482-4903 ext.
    [Show full text]