DOCSLIB.ORG

Understanding Philosophy of Science

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Understanding Philosophy of Science UNDERSTANDING PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE ‘This is the best introduction to philosophy of science I have read. I will certainly use it. The writing is wonderfully clear without being sim- plistic. It is not at all too difficult for second and third year students. Many of my philosophy of science students have no background in philosophy, and I’m sure they will find the book accessible, informa- tive, and a pleasure to read. I read this manuscript with my students in mind. This is the book we’ve been looking for.’ Peter Kosso, Northern Arizona University Few can imagine a world without telephones or televisions; many depend on computers and the Internet as part of daily life. Without scientific theory, these developments would not have been possible. In this exceptionally clear and engaging introduction to the philosophy of science, James Ladyman explores the philosophical questions that arise when we reflect on the nature of the scientific method and the knowledge it produces. He discusses whether fundamental philosophical questions about knowledge and reality might be answered by science, and considers in detail the debate between realists and antirealists about the extent of scientific knowledge. Along the way, central topics in the philosophy of science, such as the demarcation of science from non-science, induction, confirmation and falsification, the relationship between theory and observation, and relativ- ism, are all addressed. Important and complex current debates over under- determination, inference to the best explanation and the implications of radical theory change are clarified and clearly explained for those new to the subject. The style is refreshing and unassuming, bringing to life the essential ques- tions in the philosophy of science. Ideal for any student of philosophy or science, this book requires no previous knowledge of either discipline. It contains the following textbook features: • suggestions for further reading • cross-referencing with an extensive bibliography. James Ladyman is Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Bristol, UK. UNDERSTANDING PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE James Ladyman London and New York First published 2002 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2002. © 2002 James Ladyman All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Ladyman, James, 1969– . Understanding philosophy of science/James Ladyman. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Science – Philosophy. I. Title. Q175.L174 2001 501 – dc21 2001048105 ISBN 0–415–22156–0 (hbk) ISBN 0–415–22157–9 (pbk) ISBN 0-203-46368-4 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-203-77192-3 (Glassbook Format) For Audrey Ladyman Contents Preface xi Acknowledgements xiii INTRODUCTION 1 Philosophy of science as epistemology and metaphysics 5 PART I THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 1 INDUCTION AND INDUCTIVISM 11 1.1 The sceptic’s challenge 11 1.2 The scientific revolution 14 1.3 The ‘new tool’ of induction 18 1.4 (Naïve) inductivism 27 Further reading 30 2 THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION AND OTHER PROBLEMS WITH INDUCTIVISM 31 2.1 The problem of induction 32 2.2 Solutions and dissolutions of the problem of induction 40 2.3 Inductivism and the history of science 52 2.4 Theory and observation 56 2.5 Conclusions 58 Further reading 61 vii CONTENTS 3 FALSIFICATIONISM 62 3.1 Popper and the critique of Marxism and psychoanalysis 64 3.2 Popper’s solution to the problem of induction 69 3.3 The context of discovery and the context of justification 74 3.4 The Duhem problem 77 3.5 Problems with falsificationism 81 3.6 Conclusions 89 Further reading 91 4 REVOLUTIONS AND RATIONALITY 93 4.1 The received view of science 94 4.2 Kuhn’s revolutionary history of science 96 4.3 Paradigms and normal science 98 4.4 The Copernican revolution 105 4.5 Theory and observation 109 4.6 Incommensurability 115 4.7 Relativism and the role of reason in science 118 Further reading 123 PART II REALISM AND ANTIREALISM ABOUT SCIENCE 5 SCIENTIFIC REALISM 129 5.1 Appearance and reality 131 5.2 The metaphysics of the external world 138 5.3 Semantics 146 5.4 Standard scientific realism 158 5.5 Antirealism 159 Further reading 160 6 UNDERDETERMINATION 162 6.1 Underdetermination 162 6.2 Constructive empiricism 185 Further reading 194 viii CONTENTS 7 EXPLANATION AND INFERENCE 196 7.1 Explanation 198 7.2 Inference to the best explanation 209 7.3 Common sense, realism and constructive empiricism 225 Further reading 228 8 REALISM ABOUT WHAT? 230 8.1 Theory change 230 8.2 Multiple models 252 8.3 Idealisation 257 8.4 Structural realism 260 Further reading 262 Glossary 264 Bibliography 270 Index 276 ix Preface This book is intended to provide an introduction to the philosophy of science. In particular, it is aimed at science students taking a phil- osophy of science course but no other philosophy classes, as well as at those students who are studying philosophy of science as part of a philosophy degree. Hence, I have assumed no prior knowledge of philosophy, and I have not relied upon detailed knowledge of science either. I have also avoided using any mathematics. This means that some issues are not discussed despite their interest. For example, the implications of quantum mechanics for philosophy of science, and the mathematical theory of probability and its use in modelling scien- tific reasoning are not dealt with here. Nonetheless, an introductory text need not be superficial and I have tried to offer an analysis of various issues, such as induction, underdetermination and scientific realism from which even graduate students and professional philo- sophers may benefit. My aim throughout has been to make the reader aware of questions about which they may never have thought, and then to lead them through a philosophical investigation of them in order that they appreciate the strength of arguments on all sides, rather than to offer my own views. Hence, there are few answers to be found in what follows and if my readers are left puzzled where previously they were comfortable then I will be satisfied. I hope this book will also interest scientists and general readers who are curious about the philosophy of science. I have tried to keep the exposition clear and accessible throughout, and also to illustrate important lines of argument with everyday and scientific examples. However, the reader will find that the discussion in Chapter 5 is xi PREFACE largely about the historical and philosophical background to the con- temporary debate about scientific realism. Those who do not see its relevance immediately are urged to persevere, since the issues dis- cussed are of fundamental importance. Finally, I must confess in advance to historians that I have subordinated historiography to my pedagogical aims by sometimes presenting a narrative that only just begins to address the complexities and ambiguities of the historical development of philosophy and science. For the benefit of the reader, the first instances of each term expanded in the Glossary are set in bold. xii Acknowledgements I am very grateful to all those who have taught me about philosophy of science, but special thanks are due to Richard Francks, Steven French, David Papineau, Anthony Sudbery and Bas van Fraassen. Thanks to all my students, especially Carlton Gibson and Nick Talbot who gave me feedback on portions of this book at early stages. Katherine Hawley kindly allowed me to see her lecture notes on Kuhn, which were very helpful. Dawn Collins, Andrew Pyle, Paul Tappenden and an anonymous referee read the whole manuscript and gave me extensive comments for which I am extremely grateful. Thanks also to Leah Henderson who gave me useful advice on the later chapters, and Jimmy Doyle who eventually managed to read the preface and the acknowledgements. I would like to thank all my col- leagues in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Bristol for affording me study leave with which to write this book, and also the Arts and Humanities Research Board for a research leave grant. I am very grateful to Tony Bruce, philosophy editor at Routledge, who encouraged me to undertake this project, and to Siobhan Pattinson who guided it through the publication process. Finally, thanks to Audrey and Angela Ladyman for their love and support. Chapter 8 includes material reprinted from Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, vol. 28(3), French, S. and Ladyman, J., ‘Superconductivity and structures: revisiting the London account’, pp. 363–393; copyright (1997), with permission from Elsevier Science. Also, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 29(3), Ladyman, J., ‘What is structural realism?’, pp. 409–424; copyright (1998), with permission from Elsevier Science. James Ladyman xiii Introduction In many ways, our age is no different from any other: most people work hard merely to survive, while a few live in the lap of luxury; many perish in wars and conflicts, the causes of which they have no control over; the cycle of birth, reproduction and death is funda- mentally the same for us as it was for our distant ancestors. Yet certain features of the contemporary world are quite new: for example, I can pick up the phone and speak to a relative on the other side of the globe, and I can see that it is indeed a globe that I inhabit by looking at a photograph taken from space; many people’s every- day lives are enhanced by, and unimaginable without, computers, televisions and music systems; medicine can treat forms of illness and injury that would have brought certain death for earlier generations.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Companion to Analytic Philosophy
    A Companion to Analytic Philosophy Blackwell Companions to Philosophy This outstanding student reference series offers a comprehensive and authoritative survey of philosophy as a whole. Written by today’s leading philosophers, each volume provides lucid and engaging coverage of the key figures, terms, topics, and problems of the field. Taken together, the volumes provide the ideal basis for course use, represent- ing an unparalleled work of reference for students and specialists alike. Already published in the series 15. A Companion to Bioethics Edited by Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer 1. The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy Edited by Nicholas Bunnin and Eric 16. A Companion to the Philosophers Tsui-James Edited by Robert L. Arrington 2. A Companion to Ethics Edited by Peter Singer 17. A Companion to Business Ethics Edited by Robert E. Frederick 3. A Companion to Aesthetics Edited by David Cooper 18. A Companion to the Philosophy of 4. A Companion to Epistemology Science Edited by Jonathan Dancy and Ernest Sosa Edited by W. H. Newton-Smith 5. A Companion to Contemporary Political 19. A Companion to Environmental Philosophy Philosophy Edited by Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit Edited by Dale Jamieson 6. A Companion to Philosophy of Mind 20. A Companion to Analytic Philosophy Edited by Samuel Guttenplan Edited by A. P. Martinich and David Sosa 7. A Companion to Metaphysics Edited by Jaegwon Kim and Ernest Sosa Forthcoming 8. A Companion to Philosophy of Law and A Companion to Genethics Legal Theory Edited by John Harris and Justine Burley Edited by Dennis Patterson 9. A Companion to Philosophy of Religion A Companion to African-American Edited by Philip L.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophical Theory-Construction and the Self-Image of Philosophy
    Open Journal of Philosophy, 2014, 4, 231-243 Published Online August 2014 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojpp http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2014.43031 Philosophical Theory-Construction and the Self-Image of Philosophy Niels Skovgaard Olsen Department of Philosophy, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany Email: [email protected] Received 25 May 2014; revised 28 June 2014; accepted 10 July 2014 Copyright © 2014 by author and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Abstract This article takes its point of departure in a criticism of the views on meta-philosophy of P.M.S. Hacker for being too dismissive of the possibility of philosophical theory-construction. But its real aim is to put forward an explanatory hypothesis for the lack of a body of established truths and universal research programs in philosophy along with the outline of a positive account of what philosophical theories are and of how to assess them. A corollary of the present account is that it allows us to account for the objective dimension of philosophical discourse without taking re- course to the problematic idea of there being worldly facts that function as truth-makers for phi- losophical claims. Keywords Meta-Philosophy, Hacker, Williamson, Philosophical Theories 1. Introduction The aim of this article is to use a critical discussion of the self-image of philosophy presented by P. M. S. Hacker as a platform for presenting an alternative, which offers an account of how to think about the purpose and cha- racter of philosophical theories.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defence of Constructive Empiricism: Metaphysics Versus Science
    To appear in Journal for General Philosophy of Science (2004) In Defence of Constructive Empiricism: Metaphysics versus Science F.A. Muller Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Mathematics Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.000 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected] August 2003 Summary Over the past years, in books and journals (this journal included), N. Maxwell launched a ferocious attack on B.C. van Fraassen's view of science called Con- structive Empiricism (CE). This attack has been totally ignored. Must we con- clude from this silence that no defence is possible against the attack and that a fortiori Maxwell has buried CE once and for all, or is the attack too obviously flawed as not to merit exposure? We believe that neither is the case and hope that a careful dissection of Maxwell's reasoning will make this clear. This dis- section includes an analysis of Maxwell's `aberrance-argument' (omnipresent in his many writings) for the contentious claim that science implicitly and per- manently accepts a substantial, metaphysical thesis about the universe. This claim generally has been ignored too, for more than a quarter of a century. Our con- clusions will be that, first, Maxwell's attacks on CE can be beaten off; secondly, his `aberrance-arguments' do not establish what Maxwell believes they estab- lish; but, thirdly, we can draw a number of valuable lessons from these attacks about the nature of science and of the libertarian nature of CE. Table of Contents on other side −! Contents 1 Exordium: What is Maxwell's Argument? 1 2 Does Science Implicitly Accept Metaphysics? 3 2.1 Aberrant Theories .
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    BAS C. VAN FRAASSEN Curriculum Vitae Last updated 3/6/2019 I. Personal and Academic History .................................................................................................................... 1 List of Degrees Earned ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Title of Ph.D. Thesis ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Positions held ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Invited lectures and lecture series ........................................................................................................................................ 1 List of Honors, Prizes ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Research Grants .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Non-Academic Publications ................................................................................................................................................ 5 II. Professional Activities .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Intrinsic Probability of Grand Explanatory Theories
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 37 Issue 4 Article 3 10-1-2020 The Intrinsic Probability of Grand Explanatory Theories Ted Poston Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Poston, Ted (2020) "The Intrinsic Probability of Grand Explanatory Theories," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 37 : Iss. 4 , Article 3. DOI: 10.37977/faithphil.2020.37.4.3 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol37/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" AQ1–AQ5 THE INTRINSIC PROBABILITY OF GRAND EXPLANATORY THEORIES Ted Poston This paper articulates a way to ground a relatively high prior probability for grand explanatory theories apart from an appeal to simplicity. I explore the possibility of enumerating the space of plausible grand theories of the universe by using the explanatory properties of possible views to limit the number of plausible theories. I motivate this alternative grounding by showing that Swinburne’s appeal to simplicity is problematic along several dimensions. I then argue that there are three plausible grand views—theism, atheism, and axiarchism—which satisfy explanatory requirements for plau- sibility. Other possible views lack the explanatory virtue of these three theo- ries. Consequently, this explanatory grounding provides a way of securing a nontrivial prior probability for theism, atheism, and axiarchism.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Download Starting with Science Strategies for Introducing Young Children to Inquiry 1St Edition Ebook
    STARTING WITH SCIENCE STRATEGIES FOR INTRODUCING YOUNG CHILDREN TO INQUIRY 1ST EDITION PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Marcia Talhelm Edson | 9781571108074 | | | | | Starting with Science Strategies for Introducing Young Children to Inquiry 1st edition PDF Book The presentation of the material is as good as the material utilizing star trek analogies, ancient wisdom and literature and so much more. Using Multivariate Statistics. Michael Gramling examines the impact of policy on practice in early childhood education. Part of a series on. Schauble and colleagues , for example, found that fifth grade students designed better experiments after instruction about the purpose of experimentation. For example, some suggest that learning about NoS enables children to understand the tentative and developmental NoS and science as a human activity, which makes science more interesting for children to learn Abd-El-Khalick a ; Driver et al. Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. The authors begin with theory in a cultural context as a foundation. What makes professional development effective? Frequently, the term NoS is utilised when considering matters about science. This book is a documentary account of a young intern who worked in the Reggio system in Italy and how she brought this pedagogy home to her school in St. Taking Science to School answers such questions as:. The content of the inquiries in science in the professional development programme was based on the different strands of the primary science curriculum, namely Living Things, Energy and Forces, Materials and Environmental Awareness and Care DES Exit interview. Begin to address the necessity of understanding other usually peer positions before they can discuss or comment on those positions.
    [Show full text]
  • CV, Paul Horwich, March 2017
    Curriculum Vitae Paul Horwich Department of Philosophy 212 998 8320 (tel) New York University 212 995 4178 (fax) 5 Washington Place [email protected] New York, NY 10003 EDUCATION Cornell University (Philosophy) Ph.D. 1975 Cornell University (Philosophy) M.A. 1973 Yale University (Physics and Philosophy) M.A. 1969 Oxford University (Physics) B.A. 1968 TITLE OF DOCTORAL THESIS: The Metric and Topology of Time. EMPLOYMENT Spring 2007 Visiting Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Tokyo Fall 2006 Visiting Professor of Philosophy, Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris 2005–present Professor, Department of Philosophy, New York University 2000–2005 Kornblith Distinguished Professor, Philosophy Program, Graduate Center of the City University of New York Spring 1998 Visiting Professor of Philosophy, University of Sydney 1994–2000 Professor, Department of Philosophy, University College London Fall 1994 Associate Research Director, Institute d'Histoire et Philosophie des Sciences et Technique, CNRS, Paris 1987–1994 Professor, Department of Linguistics And Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1980–1987 Associate Professor of Philosophy, MIT Fall 1978 Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of California at Los Angeles 1973–1980 Assistant Professor of Philosophy, MIT CV, Paul Horwich, March 2017 GRANTS AND FELLOWSHIPS 2008–9 Guggenheim Fellowship Spring 2007 Fellowship from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 2007 U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship Fall 1988 U.S. National Science Foundation
    [Show full text]
  • Evidential Relevance and the Grue Paradox
    科 学 哲 学31-1(1998) Evidential Relevance and the Grue Paradox Robert T. Pennock Philosophy Department The University of Texas at Austin Abstract Goodman's Grue Paradox may be intransigent as a version of the problem of induction, but may be resolved within the more lim ited context of confirmation theory in which the task is to explicate the basic notion of evidential relevance. Although the green and grue hypotheses are equivalently confirmed if we follow Goodman's use of the Hempelian instance confirmation relation, there are asym metries than can be exploited if we adopt an "ontic" confirmation theory that uses a causal notion of evidential relevance. I sort out a variety of interpretive confusions about the intended content of the definition of grue and show how the causal approach resolves each in a way that is not paradoxical. 1. Introduction If we are to make progress in confirmation theory, we must distinguish local problems having to do with the nature of evidence from the global problem of induction. Nelson Goodman posed the Grue Paradox as "The New Riddle of In- duction," but his presentation set up the problem within a Hempelian model of confirmation. In what follows I do not address the aspect of the paradox that participates in the old problem of induction but focus upon the aspect that deals with the explication of the confirmation relation, that is, the relation having to do with what counts as evidence of what. In •˜2-•˜5 1 highlight features of the para- 101 dox that are problematic when viewed with this particular question of evidential relevance in mind and in •˜6 I show how we may avoid the problems by moving from a syntactic/semantic to an ontic/causal relevance relation.' 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy. Volume 31, Winter 2006
    LIVING IN DOUBT: CARNEADES’ PITHANON RECONSIDERED SUZANNE OBDRZALEK I though the interpretation of ancient texts is inevitably di¶cult, Carneades presents what one might call a worst-case scenario. In the first place, he wrote nothing. To complicate matters, Carneades’ views were so obscure that his faithful disciple Clitomachus con- fessed that he could never figure out what Carneades actually be- lieved (Cic. Acad. 2. 139). Showing remarkable fortitude in the face of such an obstacle, Clitomachus, attempting to play Plato to Carneades’ Socrates, reportedly recorded Carneades’ teachings in 400 books (D.L. 4. 67). Not one remains. None the less, Clito- machus’ attempt to make a philosophy of Carneades’ anti-theoreti- cal stance was not a complete failure; Carneades had a tremendous influence on the later Academy as well as the Stoa, and his views (or lack thereof) have been handed down to us by both Sextus Em- piricus and Cicero. These sources are, however, problematic. As a Pyrrhonist, Sextus was critical of the Academy and may have ex- aggerated what he took to be Carneades’ dogmatism. Cicero, on the other hand, a student of Philo, was undoubtedly influenced in his interpretation of Carneades by his teacher’s dogmatic scepti- cism. Carneades is perhaps best known for proposing the pithan»e phantasia (probable impression) as a criterion for life. However, the status of his theory of the pithanon (probable) is completely unclear.1 Was it merely a dialectical move against the Stoic charge of apraxia (inaction)? Was it a theory that Carneades himself en- ã Suzanne Obdrzalek 2006 I would like to thank Alan Code, Tony Long, Julius Moravcsik, and David Sedley for their comments on this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece
    Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Ancient Greek Philosophy but didn’t Know Who to Ask Edited by Patricia F. O’Grady MEET THE PHILOSOPHERS OF ANCIENT GREECE Dedicated to the memory of Panagiotis, a humble man, who found pleasure when reading about the philosophers of Ancient Greece Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece Everything you always wanted to know about Ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask Edited by PATRICIA F. O’GRADY Flinders University of South Australia © Patricia F. O’Grady 2005 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Patricia F. O’Grady has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identi.ed as the editor of this work. Published by Ashgate Publishing Limited Ashgate Publishing Company Wey Court East Suite 420 Union Road 101 Cherry Street Farnham Burlington Surrey, GU9 7PT VT 05401-4405 England USA Ashgate website: http://www.ashgate.com British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Meet the philosophers of ancient Greece: everything you always wanted to know about ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask 1. Philosophy, Ancient 2. Philosophers – Greece 3. Greece – Intellectual life – To 146 B.C. I. O’Grady, Patricia F. 180 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Meet the philosophers of ancient Greece: everything you always wanted to know about ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask / Patricia F.
    [Show full text]
  • Holism and Compositionality
    Holism and Compositionality Francis Jeffry Pelletier 1 Introduction A brief acquaintance with the web shows that the terms ‘holism’1 and ‘compositionality’ are used in many different fields, both academic and non-academic. And given any two academic fields, it is usually not obvious that the terms mean the same to the practitioners. Even just within philosophy and linguistics it seems that rather different conceptions are in play when we read any two different authors. We start, therefore, with a brief survey of some of the senses in which these terms are used. A little later we will make some more careful remarks about the notions. 1.1 Two Kinds of Compositionality A recent interdisciplinary conference revealed that there are (at least) two different things that are thought of when the issue of compositionality is considered. One concerns a (generalized) notion of “what is a complex item (of my theory) made of?” Here are a few places where this notion arose: Prototypes: Current prototype theory says that a prototype is a structure that has a number of attribute-value pairs. A question of interest in this area is: Given that prototype-1 has a structure [A: value-a; B: value-b; . ] and that prototype-2 has the structure [C: value-c; D: value-d . ], is the prototype of the “combined prototypes” (that is, the conceptual combination of the two proto- types) made up only from the material in the two component prototypes, that is, from the attribute-value pairs that are in one or the other of the prototypes? 1 ‘Whole’, and presumably also ’hole’, is derived from the Greek .
    [Show full text]
  • A Defense of FH Bradley's Philosophy of Experience Against William James' Criticisms By
    The Experience of the Absolute: A Defense of F.H. Bradley’s Philosophy of Experience Against William James’ Criticisms By: Kyle Barbour Thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Philosophy Department of Philosophy Memorial University August 2019 St. John’s, Newfoundland Page | 1 Abstract This thesis addresses the debate between two of the most important philosophers at the turn of the 20th century: F.H. Bradley and William James. Their debate centered around the priority that each philosopher assigned to experience in terms of a starting point for metaphysical inquiry and the subsequent understanding of logical relations which each philosopher developed based upon their conception of experience. This thesis will consider James’ “radical empiricism” as a response and critique of Bradley’s philosophy. As such, through an investigation of each philosopher, this thesis will argue that James’ critique of Bradley is flawed due to his misreading of Bradley’s philosophy and will conclude that Bradley’s philosophy holds the potential to answer the difficulties found within James’ radical empiricism and, though it contains undeniable flaws of its own, holds within it the seeds for future philosophical development that exceeds Bradley and James’ debate. Page | 2 Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been possible without the support of a number of people from both my personal and academic life. I would first like to thank Dr. Suma Rajiva and Dr. Seamus O’Neill for being constant supports throughout my entire time as a philosophy student at M.U.N.
    [Show full text]