Corey Nathaniel Dethier Coreydethier.Com [email protected]
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Anjan Chakravartty SCIENCE, METAPHYSICS, and the PHILOSOPHY of SCIENCE June 4 14:00 – 14:30 Macleod 214
Anjan Chakravartty SCIENCE, METAPHYSICS, AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE June 4 14:00 – 14:30 MacLeod 214 Subsequent to the transition from the era of natural philosophy to what we now recognize as the era of the modern sciences, the latter have often been described as independent of the major philosophical preoccupations that previously informed theorizing about the natural world. The extent to which this is a naïve description is a matter of debate, and in particular, views of the relationship between the modern sciences and metaphysics have varied enormously. Logical positivism spawned a distaste for metaphysics within the philosophy of science which lasts to this day, but in recent years, a renaissance in analytic metaphysics has been embraced by a growing number of philosophers of science. Those moved by distaste commonly subscribe either to a minimalist Humean metaphysic, or to a quietism about metaphysical questions generally, and often maintain that such stances are operative in scientific practice itself. Those moved by attraction contend that metaphysical investigations into the natures of things like properties, causation, laws, and modality, are required in order to interpret descriptions of the world furnished by our best scientific theories, and often suggest that metaphysical commitments with respect to issues such as these likely play a significant role in scientific theorizing itself. In this paper, I will attempt to enumerate the philosophical presuppositions separating these approaches to scientific knowledge, and consider some prospects for their resolution. Andrea Charise Location, location, location: Cultural technologies of brain mapping in Victorian science and modern neuroimaging June 3, 15:45-16:15 MacLeod 254 In this paper, I discuss the conceptual linkages between recent trends in neuroimaging technologies of “brain mapping” and the enormously popular nineteenth-century pseudoscientific practice of phrenology. -
Understanding Perspectivism
This impressive collection is essential reading for appreciating the inevi- table contextualities of scientific knowledge. It explores how notions of “perspective” can illuminate the epistemic upshot of the sciences and how they are situated in their history, practices, representations, and sometimes competing aims, provocatively advancing debates about realism, pragma- tism, explanation, and modeling in the process, all through a wealth of cases from physics, biology, neuroscience, and medical science . —Anjan Chakravartty, University of Miami An excellent collection of essays on a topic rapidly establishing itself as an important interpretive programme in philosophy of science. One of the volume’s many merits consists in showing the diversity and versatil- ity of perspectivism while illustrating common features among its differ- ent varieties. The reader is thus provided an enormously rich foundation for evaluating the role of perspectivism in understanding science and its practices . —Margaret Morrison, University of Toronto Perspectivism is a fruitful metaphor for imagining alternatives to tradi- tional realism in philosophy of science. Massimi and McCoy have gath- ered ten essays which show how perspectivism is illuminating in areas such as molecular biology and measurement theory, and also explore the relationships between perspectivism and other recent accounts including pragmatism, structural realism, pluralism, and scientific modelling. There is an excellent balance of established and emerging scholars in the field. This volume is a superb, cutting-edge text to use in an advanced graduate seminar . —Miriam Solomon, Temple University Understanding Perspectivism This edited collection is the first of its kind to explore the view called perspectivism in the philosophy of science. The book brings together an array of essays that reflect on the methodological promises and scientific challenges of perspectivism in a variety of fields such as physics, biology, cognitive neuroscience, and cancer research, just for a few examples. -
2005 Bulletin
Volume 13 U N I V E R S I T Y OF P I T T S B U R G H B U L AUGUSTL E T 2005I N NOTES FROM THE DIRECTOR 22. It was a great pleasure for Rutgers University) and I joined me to be involved in both. forces to organize a conference October 1-3 celebrating the During my eight years as Cen- contributions of our dear friend ter Director I have had the great Allan Gotthelf to the under- pleasure of working with standing of the philosophy and Gereon Wolters of Konstanz science of classical Greece. The and Peter Machamer of Pitts- program and pictures of the burgh (and their committees) event can be found on the on four Pittsburgh-Konstanz Center's web site among the Colloquia. May 26-30, 2005 Archived Events. Allan is cur- was our seventh, held in rently Visiting Professor of His- BULLETINBULLETIN Konstanz, as is fitting, given tory and Philosophy of Science that one of the architects of this thanks to a fellowship provided Table of Contents warm, multi-faceted coop- by the Anthem Foundation for erative venture, Jürgen the Study of Objectivism. 3 Visiting Fellows 2004-05 Jim Lennox Mittelstrass, retires this year. 6 In Memoriam: Ernst Mayr For the first time the event was October 12-14 we once again 7 Anjan Chakravartty he completion of my staged in the historic heart of co-sponsored the Nagel Lec- second (and final!) Konstanz, in the city's Cultural tures, organized every two years 8 In Memoriam: Eduardo H. -
CLMPS 2011 Program
CLMPS 2011 Program Division of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science of the International Union of History and Philosophy of Science Congress Secretariat (Eds.) Program CLMPS 2011 General theme Logic and Science Facing New Technologies 14th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science Nancy, July 19–26, 2011 (France) Contents Welcome Address1 Committees3 Executive Commitee of DLMPS.......................3 General Program Committee.........................3 Organizing Committee.............................5 Official Program8 Typographical Note...............................9 Overview...................................... 11 List of Sections.............................. 13 Plenary Lectures and Special Sessions.................... 15 IUHPS – Joint Commission Symposium ................. 19 Program by Day 21 Tuesday 19.................................... 23 Wednesday 20................................... 24 Thursday 21.................................... 26 Friday 22...................................... 31 Saturday 23.................................... 37 Monday 25..................................... 42 Tuesday 26.................................... 47 Program by Sections (including Chairs) 51 A1. Mathematical Logic............................ 53 A2. Philosophical Logic............................. 55 A3. Logic and Computation.......................... 61 B1. Methodology and Scientific Reasoning................. 63 B2. Ethical Issues in the Philosophy of Science............... 70 B3. Historical Aspects in the -
REVIEW ANJAN CHAKRAVARTTY a Metaphysics for Scientific Realism
Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 62 (2011), 443–451 REVIEW ANJAN CHAKRAVARTTY A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservable Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. pp. xvii + 251, £47.00 (hardback) ISBN-10: 0521130093 Downloaded from ISBN-13: 978-0521130097 Sungho Choi http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/ Philosophy Dept., Kyung Hee University Seoul, Republic of Korea [email protected] Scientific realism has been at the heart of contemporary philosophical discus- sions regarding the intellectual enterprises collectively called ‘science’. Very at University of Notre Dame on August 24, 2016 approximately, it is the view that we are entitled to accept our best scientific theories at face value, as providing a literally true description of reality, ob- servable or not. Though this view may seem commonsensical at first glance, it has invited numerous powerful criticisms from skeptics with the result that there is a growing agreement among philosophers that it now requires con- siderable refinements and careful metaphysical backing. The thought is that scientific realism must be considerably refined such that what is susceptible to realist commitment is carefully circumscribed; and, further, that it is in need of metaphysical support that involves suitable clarifications of metaphysical no- tions like causation, properties, laws of nature, kinds, and so on, which sci- entific realists often make recourse to in their defense. This is a tremendous task, which is squarely tackled by Anjan Chakravartty’s A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism. The book, whose goal is to supply the requisite metaphysical machinery for scientific realists and thereby tell us how to be a sophisticated scientific realist, divides into three carefully coordinated parts. -
Waiting for Hume PETER LIPTON
03-KAIL-Chap02.qxd 31/12/04 6:32 PM Page 59 Waiting for Hume PETER LIPTON It was David Hume’s great sceptical argument about non-demonstrative reasoning—the problem of induction—that hooked me on philosophy. I am still wriggling, but in the present essay I will not consider how the Humean challenge to justify our inductive practices might be met; rather, I ask why we had to wait until Hume for the challenge to be raised. The question is a natural one to ask, given the intense interest in scepticism before Hume for as far back as we can see in the history of philosophy, and given that Hume’s sceptical argument is so simple and so fundamental. It is not so easy to answer. I am no historian of philosophy, and given the pull that the problem of induction exerts on my own philosophical thinking, I know there is a considerable risk that the historical speculations I consider here will turn out to be worthlessly anachronistic. But I hope not. Hume’s discussion is deeply attractive for a number of reasons. In part it is the scope of Hume’s scepticism. Our reliance on induction is ubiquitous, and Hume’s argument seems to impugn all of it. But this does not explain why Hume impressed me even more than Descartes, who in his First Meditation questions far more. (I was, however, pretty excited by Descartes too.) The contrast is explained in part by the fact that Hume’s argument is in at least two senses more radical than the sceptical arguments that Descartes offers. -
ANJAN CHAKRAVARTTY CV April 2017
ANJAN CHAKRAVARTTY CV April 2017 Department of Philosophy University of Notre Dame 100 Malloy Hall Notre Dame, IN 46556 USA Telephone: +1 574 631 1301 Fax: +1 574 631 0588 Email: [email protected] ACADEMIC EDUCATION 2001 PhD University of Cambridge 1997 MPhil University of Cambridge 1995 MA University of Toronto 1991 BSc (Honors) University of Toronto EMPLOYMENT 2014-present Director, John J. Reilly Center for Science, Technology, and Values, University of Notre Dame 2011-present Professor, University of Notre Dame 2008-11 Director, Institute for History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, University of Toronto 2007-11 Associate Professor, University of Toronto 2002-07 Assistant Professor, University of Toronto 2000-02 Junior Research Fellow, King’s College, University of Cambridge 1999-00 Teaching Fellow, School of Philosophy, University of Leeds HONORS 2016-17 Guggenheim Fellow, John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation 2016-17 Senior Visiting Fellow, Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh 2016 Values-Driven Leadership Award, Benedictine University (‘given to a scholar who has exemplified values-driven leadership throughout his or her career’) 2015, 2013 Distinguished Visiting Scholar, Center for Values-Driven Leadership, Benedictine University 2010, 2008 Dean’s Excellence Award, University of Toronto (for contributions to research and leadership in the field) 2009 Canadian Philosophical Association Biennial Book Prize (for A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservable, Cambridge University -
Semirealism Anjan Chakravartty*
Pergamon Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci., Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 391–408, 1998 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0039–3681/98 $19.00+0.00 Semirealism Anjan Chakravartty* 1. Introduction The intuition of the naı¨ve realist, miracle arguments notwithstanding, is countered forcefully by a host of considerations, including the possibility of underdetermin- ation, and criticisms of abductive inferences to explanatory hypotheses. Some have suggested that an induction may be performed, from the perspective of present theories, on their predecessors. Past theories are thought to be false, strictly speak- ing; it is thus likely that present-day theories are also false, and will be taken as such at an appropriate future time. Let us begin with the assumption of an external, mind-independent reality, add to this the further tenet that our theories concerning this reality have truth values and are to be literally construed, and set ourselves the project of determining cir- cumstances under which we might be justified in believing such theories to be true. Let us entertain the notion that many past theories were rejected, not merely because they were false, but because they were only partially true. On this hypoth- esis, our task naturally becomes one of identifying what these elements of truth might be, and determining principled grounds which permit such identification. What if it could be demonstrated that some particular aspect of each theory within a succession of theories in some domain was retained throughout? The identification of such retained elements with the truth of empirically successful theories about the natural world is the proposal of semirealism. -
Stance Relativism: Empiricism Versus Metaphysics
Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 35 (2004) 173–184 www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsa Essay review Stance relativism: empiricism versus metaphysics Anjan Chakravartty Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, University of Toronto, 91 Charles Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1K7, Canada Abstract In The empirical stance, Bas van Fraassen argues for a reconceptualization of empiricism, and a rejection of its traditional rival, speculative metaphysics, as part of a larger and provoca- tive study in epistemology. Central to his account is the notion of voluntarism in epistemology, and a concomitant understanding of the nature of rationality. In this paper I give a critical assessment of these ideas, with the ultimate goal of clarifying the nature of debate between metaphysicians and empiricists, and more specifically, between scientific realists and empiricist antirealists. Despite van Fraassen’s assertion to the contrary, voluntarism leads to a form of epistemic relativism. Rather than stifling debate, however, this ‘stance’ relativism places pre- cise constraints on possibilities for constructive engagement between metaphysicians and empiricists, and thus distinguishes, in broad terms, paths along which this debate may usefully proceed from routes which offer no hope of progress. 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Empiricism; Metaphysics; Scientific realism; Voluntarism; Rationality; Relativism The Empirical Stance Bas C. Van Fraassen; Yale University Press, London & New Haven, 2002, pp. xix+282, Price £22.50 hardback, ISBN 0300088744. The debates [between realists and antirealists] persist . because the most sophis- ticated positions on either side now incorporate self-justifying conceptions of the aim of philosophy and of the standards of adequacy appropriate for judging philosophical theories of science. -
Risk, Reward, and Scientific Ontology
Risk, Reward, and Scientific Ontology: Reply to Bryant, Psillos, and Slater ANJAN CHAKRAVARTTY University of Miami ABSTRACT: Scientific Ontology: Integrating Naturalized Metaphysics and Voluntarist Epistemology contends that ontological commitments associated with scientificinquiry are infused with philosophical commitments. Interpretations of scientificontologyinvolve (what I call) metaphysical inferences, and furthermore, there are different ways of making these inferences, on the basis of different but nonetheless rational epistemic stances. If cor- rect, this problematizes any neat distinction between naturalized and other metaphysics, and dissolves any presumption of there being a uniquely correct answer to ontological questions connected to the sciences. In this paper, I consider some weighty challenges to these contentions by Amanda Bryant, Stathis Psillos, and Matthew Slater. RÉSUMÉ : Dans Scientific Ontology: Integrating Naturalized Metaphysics and Voluntarist Epistemology, je soutiens que les convictions ontologiques associées à la recherche scientifique sont imprégnées de convictions philosophiques. Les interprétations de l’ontologie scientifique impliquent ce que j’appelle des inférences métaphysiques et, qui plus est, il existe différentes façons de faire ces inférences sur la base de positions épistémiques différentes, mais néanmoins rationnelles. Si cette analyse est juste, elle problématise toute distinction nette entre la métaphysique naturalisée et les autres types de métaphysique, et dissout toute présomption qu’il existe une seule bonne réponse aux questions ontologiques liées aux sciences. Dans cet article, je considère quelques-uns des importants défisqu’Amanda Bryant, Stathis Psillos et Matthew Slater posent à l’endroit de ces affirmations. Dialogue 60 (2021), 43–63 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Canadian Philosophical Association/l’Association canadienne de philosophie. -
Risk, Reward, and Scientific Ontology: Reply to Bryant, Psillos, and Slater
Risk, Reward, and Scientific Ontology: Reply to Bryant, Psillos, and Slater ANJAN CHAKRAVARTTY University of Miami ABSTRACT: Scientific Ontology: Integrating Naturalized Metaphysics and Voluntarist Epistemology contends that ontological commitments associated with scientific inquiry are infused with philosophical commitments. Interpretations of scientific ontology involve (what I call) metaphysical inferences, and furthermore, there are different ways of making these inferences, on the basis of different but nonetheless rational epistemic stances. If correct, this problematizes any neat distinction between naturalized and other metaphysics, and dissolves any presumption of there being a uniquely correct answer to ontological questions connected to the sciences. In this paper, I consider some weighty challenges to these contentions by Amanda Bryant, Stathis Psillos, and Matthew Slater. RÉSUMÉ : Dans Scientific Ontology: Integrating Naturalized Metaphysics and Voluntarist Epistemology, je soutiens que les convictions ontologiques associées à la recherche scientifique sont imprégnées de convictions philosophiques. Les interprétations de l’ontologie scientifique impliquent ce que j’appelle des inférences métaphysiques et, qui plus est, il existe différentes façons de faire ces inférences sur la base de positions épistémiques différentes, mais néanmoins rationnelles. Si cette analyse est juste, elle problématise toute distinction nette entre la métaphysique naturalisée et les autres types de métaphysique, et dissout toute présomption qu’il -
Scientific Ontology: Fact Or Stance?
Scientific Ontology: Fact or Stance? STATHIS PSILLOS University of Athens ABSTRACT: In this paper, the key tenets of Anjan Chakravartty’s book Scientific Ontology are critically discussed. After a brief presentation of the project of stance- based ontology (Section 2), I move on to criticize Chakravartty’s account of metaphys- ical inference (Sections 2 and 3). Then, in Section 4, I take issue with Chakravartty’s view that fundamental debates in metaphysics inevitably lead to irresolvable disagree- ment, while in Section 5, the concept of epistemic stance is scrutinized, noting that there are problems in Chakravartty’s account of the rationality of stance-choice. Finally, Section 6 is about the implications of stance-based ontology for the scientific realism debate. RÉSUMÉ : Dans cette contribution, les points fondamentaux du livre d’Anjan Chakravartty, Scientific Ontology, sont discutés de manière critique. Après une brève présentation du projet d’une ontologie dite «stance-based» (section 2), je critique la manière dont Chakravartty conçoit l’inférence métaphysique (sections 2 et 3). Puis, dans la section 4, je conteste l’opinion de Chakravartty selon laquelle les débats fonda- mentaux en métaphysique conduisent inévitablement à un désaccord insoluble. La sec- tion 5 examine le concept de position épistémique et relève les problèmes inhérents à la manière dont Chakravartty conçoit la rationalité de la sélection d’une position. Finalement, la section 6 concerne les implications d’une ontologie qui serait basée sur les positions épistémiques («stance-based») pour le débat sur le réalisme scientifique. Keywords: Chakravartty, metaphysics, Newton, explanation, scientific realism, empiricism Dialogue 60 (2021), 15–31 © The Author(s), 2021.