DOCSLIB.ORG

Rationality in Inquiry

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Umeå Studies in Philosophy 1 Rationality in Inquiry On the Revisability of Cognitive Standards Jonas Nilsson Rationality in Inquiry On the RevisabUity of Cognitive Standards Jonas Nilsson Umeå 2000 Institutionen för filosofi och lingvistik Umeå universitet 901 87 Umeå Akademisk avhandling som med vederbörligt tillstånd av rektorsämbetet vid Umeå universitet för avläggande av filosofie doktorsexamen offentligen försvaras i hörsal F, humanisthuset lördagen den 20 januari 2001, kl. 10.15 ISBN 91-7191-947-3 ISSN 1650-1748 Jonas Nilsson Rationality in Inquiry: On the Revisability of Cognitive Standards Department of Philosophy and Linguistics, Umeå University Monograph 2000 Umeå Studies in Philosophy 1 ISSN 1650-1748 ISBN 91-7191-947-3 Distributed by Department of Philosophy and Linguistics, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden ABSTRACT The topic of this study is to what extent standards of rational inquiry can be rationally criticized and revised. It is argued that it is rational to treat all such standards as open to criticism and revision. Arguments to the effect that we are fallible with regard to all standards of rational inquiry are presented. Standards cannot be ultimately justified and with certainty established either as adequate or as inescapable presuppositions. Apel's attempt to give ultimate justifications of certain moral and logical rules is examined and criticized. Special attention is given to our fallibility with regard to logical inference rules. The idea that certain logical rules cannot be put into question because any critical argument presupposes them is criticized. It has been claimed that there must be some basic standards which are such that they cannot be rationally evaluated and hence are rationally unrevisable. This is called "the unrevisability thesis". Related to this thesis is the normative policy according to which rationality requires that some standards be treated as unrevisable, the unrevisability policy. Two arguments that have been used to defend the unrevisability thesis and policy are examined and criticized. The conclusion is that we are not forced to accept either the thesis or the policy. The negation of the unrevisability policy is the revisability policy, according to which it is rational to treat all standards as open to rational criticism and revision. Objections that have been directed against the revisability policy are discussed and criticized. According to the objections, the revisability policy leads to rationality relativism. These objections are refuted, and it is argued that it is, on the contrary, rational to adopt the revisability policy and treat all standards of rational inquiry as criticizable and revisable. It is proposed that the rational change of standards should be viewed as a bootstrap process. General features of a bootstrap view of rational change of standards are presented, and it is argued that it is impossible to formulate a real theory of bootstrapping. Two models of standard change are presented and discussed: Laudan's reticulated model of scientific rationality and Briskman's bootstrap theory. It is claimed that in spite of defects and limitations, these models contribute to a richer understanding of bootstrapping. The fallibility and revisability of standards of rational inquiry have consequences for how the normativity of rationality should be understood. The book ends with an account of how the rationality of cognitive actions is related to the idea of the adequacy of standards. A distinction between absolute and standard-relative rationality is made, and it is argued that what an inquiring agent rationally ought to do coincides with what it is standard-relatively rational for him to do. It is shown that this view of rationality of inquiry is nevertheless inconsistent with rationality relativism, and that it is compatible with an objectivistic view of rationality. Keywords: Rationality, fallibilism, revisability, ultimate justification, relativism, bootstrap rationality, standards, cognitive goals, Laudan, Briskman, Worrall, Hauptli, Apel. Rationality in Inquiry On the Revisability of Cognitive Standards Umeå Studies in Philosophy 1 Rationality in Inquiry On the Revisability of Cognitive Standards Jonas Nilsson Umeå 2000 © Jonas Nilsson Series editors: Gunnar Andersson, Ingvar Johansson and Sten Lindström Department of Philosophy and Linguistics Umeå University SE-901 87 Umeå ISSN 1650-1748 ISBN 91-7191-947-3 Printed in Sweden by Eländers Gotab, Stockholm, 2000 Distributor: Department of Philosophy and Linguistics, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden. Till Mamma och Pappa ABSTRACT The topic of this study is to what extent standards of rational inquiry can be rationally criticized and revised. It is argued that it is rational to treat all such standards as open to criticism and revision. Arguments to the effect that we are fallible with regard to all standards of rational inquiry are presented. Standards cannot be ultimately justified and with certainty established either as adequate or as inescapable presuppositions. Apel's attempt to give ultimate justifications of certain moral and logical rules is examined and criticized. Special attention is given to our fallibility with regard to logical inference rules. The idea that certain logical rules cannot be put into question because any critical argument presupposes them is criticized. It has been claimed that there must be some basic standards which are such that they cannot be rationally evaluated and hence are rationally unrevisable. This is called "the unrevisability thesis". Related to this thesis is the normative policy according to which rationality requires that some standards be treated as unrevisable, the unrevisability policy. Two arguments that have been used to defend the unrevisability thesis and policy are examined and criticized. The conclusion is that we are not forced to accept either the thesis or the policy. The negation of the unrevisability policy is the revisability policy, according to which it is rational to treat all standards as open to rational criticism and revision. Objections that have been directed against the revisability policy are discussed and criticized. According to the objections, the revisability policy leads to rationality relativism. These objections are refuted, and it is argued that it is, on the contrary, rational to adopt the revisability policy and treat all standards of rational inquiry as criticizable and revisable. It is proposed that the rational change of standards should be viewed as a bootstrap process. General features of a bootstrap view of rational change of standards are presented, and it is argued that it is impossible to formulate a real theory of bootstrapping. Two models of standard change are presented and discussed: Laudan's reticulated model of scientific rationality and Briskman's bootstrap theory. It is claimed that in spite of defects and limitations, these models contribute to a richer understanding of bootstrapping. The fallibility and revisability of standards of rational inquiry have consequences for how the normativity of rationality should be understood. The book ends with an account of how the rationality of cognitive actions is related to the idea of the adequacy of standards. A distinction between absolute and standard-relative rationality is made, and it is argued that what an inquiring agent rationally ought to do coincides with what it is standard-relatively rational for him to do. It is shown that this view of rationality of inquiry is nevertheless inconsistent with rationality relativism, and that it is compatible with an objectivistic view of rationality. Keywords: Rationality, fallibilism, revisability, ultimate justification, relativism, bootstrap rationality, standards, cognitive goals, Laudan, Briskman, Worrall, Hauptli, Apel. vii Acknowledgements First I want to thank my supervisor Ingvar Johansson. He has been constantly supportive and generous towards me. The time and energy he has devoted to me and to my work, go far beyond what duty requires of a supervisor. His careful reading of everything I have written during these years, and his innumerable criticisms and suggestions, have been invaluable. Two other Umeå philosophers have contributed in an especially important way, both to the writing of this dissertation and to my philosophical development in general. Gunnar Andersson has read and commented on what I have written, and I have learnt much from our discussions of philosophy of science and theories of rationality. Sten Lindström has also read and commented on my writings. Discussions with Sten have opened my eyes to many complications and difficulties that I would not have noticed otherwise, and they have greatly improved my understanding of the problems discussed in this work. All of the chapters in this dissertation have been presented at the Friday seminar at the Philosophy department in Umeå. The discussions there have resulted in many improvements, and I want to thank all the participants at those seminars. In particular, I wish to thank Hildur Kalman, Per Nilsson, Peter Nilsson, Bertil Strömberg and Pär Sundström, who have all generously commented on different versions of the chapters presented here. Our department secretary Ann-Katrin Minnhagen has helped me with many practical things, especially during the final stages of preparation for publication. For that I thank her. I spent the autumn semester 1998 at the Philosophy department at York University in Toronto. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Professor Ian C. Jarvie, who invited me to York and supervised me while I was there. He generously provided me with an office of my own, and made many arrangements to make my stay there philosophically fruitful as well as pleasant. It was during that time I wrote the first drafts of most of the chapters of this dissertation, and our discussions together was a great help to me in coming to realize what it was I wanted to do and how I should do it. viii I have had financial support for this work from the Philosophy department in Umeå, the Faculty of Humanities at Umeå University, and Riksbankens Jubileumsfond. I also received a grant from Kempefonden at an early stage of my graduate studies.
Recommended publications
  • Fallibilism and Organizational Research: the Third Epistemology

    Fallibilism and Organizational Research: the Third Epistemology

    FALLIBILISM AND ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH: THE THIRD EPISTEMOLOGY Published as : Powell, T.C. 2001. Fallibilism and Organizational Research: The Third Epistemology, Journal of Management Research , 4, 201-219. Correspondence to : Thomas Powell Professor of Strategy, Oxford University Said Business School Park End Street Oxford OX2 8BZ UK [email protected] 1 FALLIBILISM AND ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH: THE THIRD EPISTEMOLOGY Abstract Epistemology is the study of knowledge - of what is known and how we know it. Organizational epistemology is dominated by the dualist opposition of objectivist and subjectivist philosophies of science. Objectivists accept knowledge claims as potentially true and warranted on objective evidence, whereas subjectivists ground knowledge in perception, phenomenology and social construction. Though these two perspectives differ in their ontologies (the reality of constructs and relations) and methodologies (how these relations can be observed), both views accept that reliable organizational knowledge is possible. This paper introduces a third epistemological perspective - fallibilism - and shows how neglect of this third epistemology has constrained advance in the objectivist-subjectivist debate. Fallibilism, which challenges the foundations and reliability of knowledge claims, occupies a significant place in every major philosophical tradition, but contradicts the prevailing rhetoric of knowledge-claiming in organizational research, and has been systematically excluded from the debate. In this article we present the foundations and precepts of fallibilism, show how its absence has invited divisive and sectarian dogmatism, and explores its potential contributions to organizational research. 2 FALLIBILISM AND ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH: THE THIRD EPISTEMOLOGY Organization and epistemology It is customary in the philosophy of social science to depict organizational epistemology as a debate between objectivist and subjectivist perspectives (Burrell and Morgan, 1979; Morgan and Smircich, 1980; Gioia and Pitre, 1990; Knights, 1992).
  • The Ten Lenses of Philosophical Inquiry Philosophical Inquiry Research Project1

    The Ten Lenses of Philosophical Inquiry Philosophical Inquiry Research Project1

    The Ten Lenses of Philosophical Inquiry Philosophical Inquiry Research Project1 The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes. – Marcel Proust A huge part of Philosophical Inquiry is learning how to see the world with new eyes. To accomplish this goal, you will be introduced to the “ten lenses of philosophical inquiry.” The ten lenses of philosophical inquiry are tools to help us critically engage with, and analyze ourselves, and the world around us. Like a pair of glasses, the ten lenses help to change our perception and give us the power to re-examine our reality. In this philosophical inquiry research project you will get introduced to each of the ten lenses so that you become comfortable using the lenses both inside and out of our class. You will also learn more about a philosopher, their philosophy and the lens of philosophical inquiry that they are most clearly connected to. Focus Question What are the ten lenses of philosophical inquiry, and what are some examples of how they are connected to the philosophies of different philosopher’s throughout history? Philosophical Inquiry Research Process 1) QUESTION - Develop the philosophical questions that you will use to drive your inquiry. 2) PLAN – Determine the types of sources that you will need to answer your questions. 3) GATHER EVIDENCE – Gather the information (textual, visual, quantitative, etc.) you need to explore and answer your questions. 4) ANALYZE – Analyze the answers to your questions, making sure to keep in mind the larger focus question guiding this inquiry. 5) COMMUNICATE CONCLUSIONS – Use evidence and reasons to write an organized (logically sequenced) explanation to the inquiry’s topic/focus question.
  • Publications • Reference Works O the Routledge Companion to Evidence

    Publications • Reference Works O the Routledge Companion to Evidence

    Curriculum Vitae for Trent Dougherty POSITIONS Fall 2009-Present: Assistant Professor of Philosophy, tenure track, Baylor University Trinity Term 2014 Visiting Scholar, Oxford University Spring 2014 Visiting Scholar, University of St. Andrews Fall 2011-Spring 2012 Visiting Research Professor, University of Notre Dame Fall 2008-Spring 2009 Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Saint John Fisher College, Rochester, NY (while completing PhD) EDUCATION • PhD, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, Richard Feldman, advisor, May 2009. • MA, Philosophy, University of Missouri-Columbia, Director Jon Kvanvig • AB, Philosophy and Classics, University of Missouri-Columbia DISSERTATION • Against Pragmatic Encroachment: A Defense of Simple Moderate Invariantism. • Committee: o Richard Feldman, Chair, Earl Conee, Greg Carlson, Chairman, Department of Linguistics, University of Rochester, Jeff Runner, Department of Linguistics, University of Rochester AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION • Epistemology/Rationality Theory (Evidence/Reasons) • Philosophy of Religion • Philosophy of Language AREAS OF COMPETENCE • Philosophy of Science • Metaphysics and Mind • Decision Theory • Applied Ethics Publications • Reference Works o The Routledge Companion to Evidence. (ed) Routledge. In progress. • Textbooks o A Critical Introduction to Justification (with Kevin McCain, Jon Matheson, and Jason Rogers). Acumen. In progress. • Edited Collections o Skeptical Theism: New Essays, (with Justin McBrayer) Oxford University Press, (2014). Edited volume of leading philosophers of religion on epistemic response to the problem of evil. o Evidentialism and Its Discontents, Oxford University Press, 2011. Edited volume of leading epistemologists on the role of evidence in epistemology. • Books o The Problem of Animal Pain: A Theodicy for All Creatures Great and Small, (2014) Palgrave MacMillan. o God and the Mystery of Evil. Under contract with OUP.
  • CURRICULUM VITAE RICHARD BETT Department of Philosophy the Johns Hopkins University Citizen of U.K. Baltimore, MD 21218-2686 P

    CURRICULUM VITAE RICHARD BETT Department of Philosophy the Johns Hopkins University Citizen of U.K. Baltimore, MD 21218-2686 P

    CURRICULUM VITAE RICHARD BETT Department of Philosophy The Johns Hopkins University Citizen of U.K. Baltimore, MD 21218-2686 Permanent Resident of U.S. Phone: (410) 516-6863 Fax: (410) 516-6848 e-mail: <[email protected]> EDUCATION B.A. Oxford University, 1980, Literae Humaniores (Classics and Philosophy). First Class Honours, Final Examinations, 1980; First Class Honours, Honour Moderations in Greek & Latin Literature, 1978 Ph.D. University of California, Berkeley, 1986, Philosophy. Dissertation Title: “Moral Scepticism: Why Ask ‘Why Should I be Moral?’” CURRENT POSITION Professor of Philosophy, The Johns Hopkins University; secondary appointment in Classics PREVIOUS POSITIONS Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Arlington, 1986-1991 Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Johns Hopkins, Jan.-June 1991 Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Johns Hopkins, 1991-1994 Associate Professor of Philosophy, Johns Hopkins, 1994-2000; secondary appointment in Classics, 1996-2000 Acting Executive Director, The American Philosophical Association, Jan. 2000-June 2001 PUBLICATIONS a) Books Sextus Empiricus, Against the Ethicists (Adversus Mathematicos XI): Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997, paperback 2000). Pp. xxxiv + 302 Pyrrho, his Antecedents and his Legacy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000, paperback 2003). Pp. xi + 264 Sextus Empiricus, Against the Logicians (Adversus Mathematicos VII-VIII): Introduction, Translation and Notes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). Pp. xliv + 207 The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Scepticism (editor) (Cambridge University Press, 2010). Pp. xii + 380 (Books, continued) Sextus Empiricus, Against the Physicists (Adversus Mathematicos IX-X): Introduction, Translation and Notes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). Pp. xxxiii + 178 Sextus Empiricus, Against those in the Disciplines (Adversus Mathematicos I-VI): Introduction, Translation and Notes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).
  • DIVORCE and RETREAT!

    DIVORCE and RETREAT!

    Advice for infallibilists: DIVORCE & RETREAT! Article (Published Version) Booth, Anthony Robert (2018) Advice for infallibilists: DIVORCE & RETREAT! Synthese, 195 (9). pp. 3773-3789. ISSN 0039-7857 This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/68117/ This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published version. Copyright and reuse: Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University. Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. http://sro.sussex.ac.uk Synthese DOI 10.1007/s11229-017-1421-0 S.I. : EPISTEMIC JUSTIFICATION Advice for Infallibilists: DIVORCE and RETREAT! Anthony Robert Booth1 Received: 1 April 2016 / Accepted: 28 April 2017 © The Author(s) 2017.
  • Infallibilism and Easy Counter-Examples

    Infallibilism and Easy Counter-Examples

    grazer philosophische studien 95 (2018) 475-499 brill.com/gps Infallibilism and Easy Counter-Examples Alex Davies University of Tartu [email protected] Abstract Infallibilism is commonly rejected because it is apparently subject to easy counter- examples. The author describes a strategy that infallibilists can use to resist this ob- jection. Because the sentences used in the counter-examples to express evidence and belief are context-sensitive, the infallibilist can insist that such counter-examples trade on a vacillation between different readings of these sentences. The author describes what difficulties await those who try to produce counter-examples against which the proposed strategy is ineffective. Keywords context-sensitivity – counter-examples – entailment – infallibilism 1 The Example Based Objection Infallibilism about evidence-based belief is the following thesis: Infallibilism A knows that P on the basis of evidence E only if E entails P.1 1 I restrict attention to evidence-based belief because I don’t want infallibilism to turn out false simply because there’s such a thing as knowledge that is not based on evidence. Defenders of infallibilism (more or less so understood) include Bonjour (2010), Dodd (2011), Ledding- ton (forthcoming), McDowell (1982), and Travis (2005). Unlike the others, Bonjour and Dodd both defend infallibilism and either argue (in the case of (Dodd, 2007)) or grant (in the case of (Bonjour, ibid)) that infallibilism implies scepticism. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/18756735-000054Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 09:56:17AM via free access <UN> 476 Alex Davies Infallibilism is the kind of philosophical thesis that undergraduates have to be taught out of believing—in the first instance, untutored intuition tends to be in its favour.
  • A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry

    A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry

    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont Scripps Senior Theses Scripps Student Scholarship 2019 A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry Karina Bucciarelli Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses Part of the Epistemology Commons, Feminist Philosophy Commons, and the Philosophy of Science Commons Recommended Citation Bucciarelli, Karina, "A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry" (2019). Scripps Senior Theses. 1365. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/1365 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Scripps Student Scholarship at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scripps Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A FEMINIST EPISTEMOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK: PREVENTING KNOWLEDGE DISTORTIONS IN SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY by KARINA MARTINS BUCCIARELLI SUBMITTED TO SCRIPPS COLLEGE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS PROFESSOR SUSAN CASTAGNETTO PROFESSOR RIMA BASU APRIL 26, 2019 Bucciarelli 2 Acknowledgements First off, I would like to thank my wonderful family for supporting me every step of the way. Mamãe e Papai, obrigada pelo amor e carinho, mil telefonemas, conversas e risadas. Obrigada por não só proporcionar essa educação incrível, mas também me dar um exemplo de como viver. Rafa, thanks for the jokes, the editing help and the spontaneous phone calls. Bela, thank you for the endless time you give to me, for your patience and for your support (even through WhatsApp audios). To my dear friends, thank you for the late study nights, the wild dance parties, the laughs and the endless support.
  • Principles of Scientific Inquiry

    Principles of Scientific Inquiry

    Chapter 2 PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY Introduction This chapter provides a summary of the principles of scientific inquiry. The purpose is to explain terminology, and introduce concepts, which are explained more completely in later chapters. Much of the content has been based on explanations and examples given by Wilson (1). The Scientific Method Although most of us have heard, at some time in our careers, that research must be carried out according to “the scientific method”, there is no single, scientific method. The term is usually used to mean a systematic approach to solving a problem in science. Three types of investigation, or method, can be recognized: · The Observational Method · The Experimental (and quasi-experimental) Methods, and · The Survey Method. The observational method is most common in the natural sciences, especially in fields such as biology, geology and environmental science. It involves recording observations according to a plan, which prescribes what information to collect, where it should be sought, and how it should be recorded. In the observational method, the researcher does not control any of the variables. In fact, it is important that the research be carried out in such a manner that the investigations do not change the behaviour of what is being observed. Errors introduced as a result of observing a phenomenon are known as systematic errors because they apply to all observations. Once a valid statistical sample (see Chapter Four) of observations has been recorded, the researcher analyzes and interprets the data, and develops a theory or hypothesis, which explains the observations. The experimental method begins with a hypothesis.
  • Experiential & Inquiry-Based Learning with Youth in Non-Formal Settings

    Experiential & Inquiry-Based Learning with Youth in Non-Formal Settings

    Working with youth in non-formal settings ensuring rich enrichment Experiential & Inquiry-based Learning with Youth in Non-formal Settings 4-H Science learning for youth can be deepened by building inquiry-based learning methods into programs and curricula. For over two decades of educational reform, science education has focused on inquiry as a method for learning and doing natural science in formal classrooms. When used to make sense of the natural world from within the discipline of science, inquiry-based learning is ‘scientific inquiry. ’ Non-formal program designers and practitioners are faced with decisions about which scientific inquiry methods to transfer from the formal classroom to the non-formal setting, which methods to adapt to better fit the non-formal learning needs of youth, and how to best prepare adults to facilitate scientific inquiry with youth. Why is this thinking important to 4-H staff and volunteers? Evaluation results indicate that inquiry-based methods support youth in Key Concepts their learning. Minner et al (2010) reviewed 138 evaluation studies and found that inquiry-based approaches in the science, engineering, technology ,and math Experiential learning: content areas had the largest effect sizes, or made the greatest positive Constructing learning through hands-on experiences that are difference, when there was an emphasis on active learning and involvement in highly social in nature. the investigative process (asking questions, designing investigations, collecting data, drawing conclusions, communicating findings). Hands-on experiences with Inquiry-based learning: Constructing learning through natural phenomena were also found to be associated with increased conceptual hands-on experiences that provide learning in the science content investigated.
  • PHIL 137: Skepticism, Relativism, and Truth

    PHIL 137: Skepticism, Relativism, and Truth

    Philosophy 137: Skepticism, Relativism, and Truth Whitman College – Fall 2018 Mitch Clearfield [email protected] office: Olin 195 office hours: office phone: 527-5853 Mon. 2-4 & Fri. 1-2:30 Course Description In philosophy, and for many people in everyday life, a genuine “truth” is something that reflects the way things really are, objectively speaking. Skepticism either opposes the idea that there are such objective truths, or claims that we can never really have adequate access to them. Relativism claims that something can be true only within a particular individual’s or culture’s perspective, but not absolutely or universally. In this class, we will examine different forms of skepticism and relativism, and different responses from defenders of objective truth. We will briefly consider the views of the ancient Greek skeptics and the 16th century French philosopher René Descartes, but most of the readings in the course were written by recent and contemporary English-language philosophers. We will consider views that are skeptical or relativist about everything, as well as views that focus on more specific topics: • Science: Do our best scientific theories capture (or at least get closer and closer to capturing) the way the world really is? Does science make progress toward truth? • Language: Do different languages reflect or even impose fundamentally different ways of understanding the world? Can the speaker of one language fully understand the speaker of another language? • Culture: Do different cultures reflect or even impose fundamentally
  • 1 a Tale of Two Interpretations

    1 a Tale of Two Interpretations

    Notes 1 A Tale of Two Interpretations 1. As Georges Dicker puts it, “Hume’s influence on contemporary epistemology and metaphysics is second to none ... ” (1998, ix). Note, too, that Hume’s impact extends beyond philosophy. For consider the following passage from Einstein’s letter to Moritz Schlick: Your representations that the theory of rel. [relativity] suggests itself in positivism, yet without requiring it, are also very right. In this also you saw correctly that this line of thought had a great influence on my efforts, and more specifically, E. Mach, and even more so Hume, whose Treatise of Human Nature I had studied avidly and with admiration shortly before discovering the theory of relativity. It is very possible that without these philosophical studies I would not have arrived at the solution (Einstein 1998, 161). 2. For a brief overview of Hume’s connection to naturalized epistemology, see Morris (2008, 472–3). 3. For the sake of convenience, I sometimes refer to the “traditional reading of Hume as a sceptic” as, e.g., “the sceptical reading of Hume” or simply “the sceptical reading”. Moreover, I often refer to those who read Hume as a sceptic as, e.g., “the sceptical interpreters of Hume” or “the sceptical inter- preters”. By the same token, I sometimes refer to those who read Hume as a naturalist as, e.g., “the naturalist interpreters of Hume” or simply “the natu- ralist interpreters”. And the reading that the naturalist interpreters support I refer to as, e.g., “the naturalist reading” or “the naturalist interpretation”. 4. This is not to say, though, that dissenting voices were entirely absent.
  • Issues in the Normativity of Logic and the Logic As Model View By

    Issues in the Normativity of Logic and the Logic As Model View By

    Issues in the Normativity of Logic and the Logic as Model View by Haggeo Cadenas A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts Approved November 2017 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee Angel Pinillos, Chair Bernard Kobes Shyam Nair Richard Creath ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY December 2017 ABSTRACT After surveying the literature on the normativity of logic, the paper answers that logic is normative for reasoning and rationality. The paper then goes on to discuss whether this constitutes a new problem in issues in normativity, and the paper affirms that it does. Finally, the paper concludes by explaining that the logic as model view can address this new problem. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...1 A ROMP THROUGH THE NORMATIVITY OF LOGIC: HARMAN AND THE NORMATIVITY OF LOGIC ……………...……………………………………………..6 Can Harman-esque Worries Lead to Normative Skepticism? ..............................17 Is Logic Normative?..............................................................................................19 WHY THINK THERE IS A UNIQUE PROBLEM?.......................................................22 Field’s account of the Normativity of Logic………………..…………………..35 Field and the Instrumental Conception of Epistemic Rationality………………..38 THE LOGIC AS MODEL VIEW AND NORMATIVITY……………………………...47 Three Ways Logic Might Relate to Reasoning……………………….………….47 An Elaboration of the Logic as Model View…………………………………….50 The Logic as Model View: A Layout, Application, and Analysis………….……55 A Layout………………………………………………………………………....55 The Application and Analysis……………………………………………………58 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………..62 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………..64 ii Issues in the Normativity of Logic and the Logic as Model View §1: Introduction What was the charge that Plato and Socrates levied against to sophists? Simply put, it’s that they, “made the weaker argument appear the stronger?” Surprisingly, this charge was brought against Socrates in his trial.