DOCSLIB.ORG

Foundationalism and the Idea of the Empirical Ciara Fairley

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Foundationalism and the Idea of the Empirical Ciara Fairley FOUNDATIONALISM AND THE IDEA OF THE EMPIRICAL CIARA FAIRLEY University College London Submitted for the degree of PhD, May 2007 1 UMI Number: U592757 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U592757 Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ABSTRACT This thesis is about foundationalism in epistemology. It distinguishes between different forms of foundationalism and defends one particular version of this doctrine. Chapter 1 gives an account of the motivations for foundationalism, including the so-called epistemic regress argument. It criticizes recent accounts of the core doctrines of foundationalism, such as those of Michael Williams and Ernest Sosa, and proposes a different account according to which foundationalism is the view that (a) some of our beliefs must be non-inferentially justified, (b) perception is a source of non-inferential justification, and (c) perception is a basic source of such justification. Chapter 2 gives an account of traditional foundationalism and tries to identify both what is right with it and what is wrong with it. It argues that the basic insight of traditional foundationalism can be detached from some of the other doctrines with which it was associated by the traditional foundationalists. That insight concerns the role of perceptual awareness or acquaintance as a regress-terminating source of epistemic justification. Chapter 3 exploits this idea in defending a more modest form of foundationalism according to which ordinary perceptual beliefs may be foundational. Chapters 3 and 4 focus on two influential arguments against the view that ordinary beliefs about the world around us can be non- inferentially justified by perception. The first argument trades on the alleged fallibility of perceptual justification, the second on its defeasibility. It is shown that neither argument poses a genuine threat to the more modest version of foundationalism that I defend. Chapter 5 compares perception with other sources of non-inferential justification such as memory and testimony. It defends the view that perception is a privileged source of non- inferential justification, even if it isn't the only source of such justification. It also contrasts foundationalism with traditional forms of extemalism such as reliabilism and explains why the latter should not be counted as a form of foundationalism. 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to Mike Martin for getting me started on this topic and for his input in the early stages of my research. In the last two years I have been helped by Quassim Cassam whose support, encouragement, and own example made it possible for me to finish this thesis. I would also like to thank Marcus Giaquinto and Paul Snowdon for useful discussions and feedback on earlier drafts of some of the following chapters. I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Royal Institute of Philosophy. This thesis is dedicated to those who have helped me most; you know who you are. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE 6 1. WHAT IS FOUNDATIONALISM? 13 1. Introduction 13 2. The Epistemic Regress Argument 24 3. Conclusion 49 2. THE HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONALISTS 50 1. Introduction 50 2. Historical Foundationalism 52 3. Revisionary Epistemology 63 4. The Idea of the Empirical 76 5. Conclusion 82 3. THE ARGUMENT FROM FALLIBILITY 84 1. Introduction 84 2. Propositional Perception 88 3. Non-Propositional Perception 96 4. Having Reasons 110 5. The Argument from Fallibility 124 6. Conclusion 138 4. THE ARGUMENT FROM DEFEASIBILTY 141 1. Introduction 141 2. Perceptual Defeasibility 142 3. The Argument from Defeasibility 151 4 4. The World Made Manifest 161 5. Historical Foundationalism Reconsidered 166 6. Indefeasibility and the Mental 175 7. Conclusion 177 5. THE PRIMACY OF PERCEPTION 178 1. Introduction 178 2. Concept Empiricism 184 3. Basic Knowledge 186 4. Generating Knowledge 192 5. Perception and Explanation 209 6. Conclusion 220 BIBLIOGRAPHY 223 5 FOUNDATIONALISM AND THE IDEA OF THE EMPIRICAL PREFACE When I first encountered foundationalism as a topic in epistemology I had a certain understanding of what it was supposed to be. I thought that foundationalism was roughly the view that not all of our justification could be inferential and that perception is the basic source of justification that is not inferential. So foundationalism, as I understood it, was a doctrine both about the structure of human knowledge or justification, and its sources. This initial impression was strengthened when I read Contemporary Theories of Knowledge by Pollock and Cruz. They claim: The simple motivation for foundations theories is the psychological observation that we have various ways of sensing the world and that all knowledge comes to us via those senses. The foundationalist takes this to mean that our senses provide us with what are then identified as epistemologically basic beliefs. We arrive at other beliefs by reasoning (construed broadly). Reasoning, it seems, can only justify us in holding a belief if we are already justified in holding the beliefs from which we reason, so reasoning cannot provide an ultimate source of justification. Only perception can do that. We thus acquire the picture of our beliefs forming a kind of pyramid, with the basic beliefs provided by perception forming the foundation, and all other justified beliefs being supported by reasoning that traces back ultimately to the basic beliefs (Pollock & Cruz 1999: 29). 6 Though Pollock and Cruz ultimately mishandle this insight they remain virtually the only commentators in this area to acknowledge the importance of perception. Their book had a lasting impact on my thinking. I thought that if I had correctly understood foundationalism it was pretty obviously true. Although some of our beliefs are justified because we have inferred them from other things that we are justified in believing it seemed obvious to me that they cannot all be justified in this way. Some of our beliefs must be non-inferentially justified and perception is the obvious source of such justification. How then could foundationalism - which says just this - fail to be true? It came as something of a surprise, then, when I discovered that not only is foundationalism not a position that most philosophers think is true. It is a position that most philosophers think is false. That left me puzzled: how could so many philosophers be so critical of a position that seems to get so much right? This thesis is to a large extent a direct product of that puzzlement and a more or less direct attempt to resolve it. The first thing that I discovered when I starting reading more widely was that other people don’t all understand foundationalism in the way that I did. The historical foundationalists - people like C. I. Lewis, Roderick Chisholm, and A. J. Ayer - agreed that our knowledge of the world rests upon a foundation of basic beliefs and that those beliefs are not justified in the way that the rest of our beliefs are justified. But while I took basic beliefs to include ordinary beliefs about objects and events in the world around 7 us, the historical foundationalists took them to be beliefs about our own minds.1 And while I thought that the basic beliefs are justified by perception the historical foundationalists claimed those beliefs are infallible and so either justify themselves or are justified by some sort of special introspective awareness. This seemed a long way from the rather commonsensical doctrine that I had always taken foundationalism to be. In recent years foundationalism has enjoyed something of a renaissance. Unfortunately, the form of foundationalism that is popular nowadays is a long way from the position that I call foundationalism. Sometimes called ‘formal foundationalism’, the new foundationalism is a bland doctrine that normally involves no more than a commitment to the idea that epistemological properties like justification supervene on non- epistemological ones. Since this makes just about everyone a foundationalist it’s not a position that I felt very excited about defending. I think that foundationalism is a substantive doctrine though not the very unattractive doctrine the historical foundationalists made it out to be. Foundationalism, as I understand it, has got three basic components. The first is that there must be such a thing as non-inferential justification and there must be because otherwise we face a vicious epistemic regress. This is the least contentious of what I regard as the three basic elements of foundationalism. I think that the so-called epistemic regress argument for 1 1 It sounds odd to say the foundational beliefs include ‘ordinary beliefs’ about the world. Aren’t ordinary beliefs supposed to be the beliefs that are supported by more basic beliefs? If the former are basic, what would be an example of a non-basic belief? This problem arises where we assume we can individuate the foundational beliefs in terms of their subject-matter. We will see later this is a mistake: foundational beliefs are not ‘about’ any particular subject-matter. What distinguishes these beliefs is the source of their justification. Here, all I mean is that the foundational beliefs might include beliefs like this: ‘the squirrel is on the fence’ ‘Ross is at the party’ and so on. This is something more traditional foundationalists denied.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Studia Philosophiae Religionis 21
    STUDIA PHILOSOPHIAE RELIGIONIS 21 Editores: Catharina Stenqvist et Eberhard Herrmann Ulf Zackariasson Forces by Which We Live Religion and Religious Experience from the Perspective of a Pragmatic Philosophical Anthropology UPPSALA 2002 Doctoral Dissertation in Philosophy of Religion for the Degree of Doctor of Theology at Uppsala University 2002. ABSTRACT Zackariasson, Ulf. 2002. Forces by which We Live. Religion and Religious Experience from the Perspective of a Pragmatic Philosophical Anthropology. Studia Philosophiae Religionis 21. 254 pp. ISBN 91–628–5169–1. ISSN 0346–5446. This study argues that a pragmatic conception of religion would enable philosophers to make important contributions to our ability to handle concrete problems involving religion. The term ’philosophical anthropology’, referring to different interpretative frameworks, which philosophers draw on to develop conceptions of human phenomena, is introduced. It is argued that the classical pragmatists embraced a philosophical anthro- pology significantly different from that embraced by most philosophers of religion; accordingly, pragmatism offers an alternative conception of religion. It is suggested that a conception of religion is superior to another if it makes more promising contributions to our ability to handle extra-philosophical problems of religion. A pragmatic philosophical anthropology urges us to view human practices as taking shape as responses to shared experienced needs. Religious practices develop to resolve tensions in our views of life. The pictures of human flourishing they present reconstruct our views of life, thereby allowing more significant interaction with the environment, and a more significant life. A modified version of reflective equilibrium is developed to show how we, on a pragmatic conception of religion, are able to supply resources for criticism and reform of religious practices, so the extra-philosophical problems of religion can be handled.
    [Show full text]
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • The Conversion of Skepticism in Augustine's Against the Academics the Conversion of Skepticism in Augustine"S Against the Academics
    THE CONVERSION OF SKEPTICISM IN AUGUSTINE'S AGAINST THE ACADEMICS THE CONVERSION OF SKEPTICISM IN AUGUSTINE"S AGAINST THE ACADEMICS BY BERNARD NEWMAN WILLS, B.A., M.A. A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor ofPhilosophy McMaster University C Copyright by Bernard Newman Wills DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (2003) McMaster University (Religious Studies) Hamilton, Ontario TITLE: The Conversion of Skepticism in Augustine's Against the Academics AUTHOR: Bernard Newman Wills, B.A., M.A. SUPERVISOR: Dr. P. Travis Kroeker NUMBER OF PAGES: v, 322 ABSTRACT This thesis examines Augustine's relation to Academic Skepticism through a detailed commentary on the dialogue Against the Academics. In it is demonstrated the significance of epistemological themes for Augustine and their inseparability from practical and religious concerns. It is also shown how these issues unfold within the logic ofAugustine's trinitarianism, which informs the argument even ofhis earliest works. This, in turn, demonstrates the depth of the young Augustine's engagement with Christian categories in works often thought to be determined wholly, or almost wholly, by the logic of Plotinian Neo-Platonism. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Travis Kroeker for his advice and considerable patience: my readers Dr. Peter Widdicome and Dr. Zdravko Planinc: Dr. David Peddle for several useful suggestions and general encouragement: Dr. Dennis House for teaching me the art of reading dialogues: Mr. Danny Howlett for his editorial assistance: Grad Students and Colleagues at Memorial University of Newfoundland and, in a category all their own, my longsuffering wife Jean and three boisterous children Kristin, Jeremy and Thomas.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Is, Ought, and the Regress Argument
    This is a draft of an article published in the Australasian Journal of Philosophy. Citations should be to published version: https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2018.1501400 ​ Is, Ought, and the Regress Argument Abstract: Many take the claim that you can’t ‘get’ an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ to imply that non-moral beliefs are by themselves incapable of justifying moral beliefs. I argue that this is a mistake and that the position that moral beliefs are justified exclusively by non-moral beliefs– a view I call moral inferentialism – ​ presents an attractive non-skeptical moral epistemology. “Why should I believe this set of propositions?” is quite different from the logical question: “What is the smallest and logically simplest group of propositions from which this set of propositions can be deduced?” –Bertrand Russell, The Philosophy of Logical Atomism p. 129 §1 Is to Ought Of the many theses that have been held about the relationship between thoughts about what is and ​ thoughts about what is good or what ought to be, one of the most straightforward often gets overlooked. ​ ​ ​ The following is, I imagine, a common experience: a thought crosses your mind about how things are, were, or might be. Next, you have an evaluative or a deontic thought – a thought about goodness, badness or about what ought to be done. Not only does the one thought follow the other, but it seems the first thought – the thought about what ‘is’ – justifies the second thought about value or obligation. For ​ ​ instance, you think: ‘The old man collapsed and is in pain,’ and that seems to support the thought that something bad has happened and you ought to help.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • THE MORAL CLOSURE ARGUMENT Matt Lutz
    Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v19i1.243 Vol. 19, No. 1 · January 2021 © 2021 Author THE MORAL CLOSURE ARGUMENT Matt Lutz skeptical hypothesis argument introduces a scenario—a skeptical hypothesis—where our beliefs about some subject matter are systemat- A ically false, but our experiences do not discriminate between the case where our beliefs are true and the skeptical scenario where they are not. Because we are unable to rule out this scenario, we do not know that any of our beliefs about the subject matter are true. As one famous skeptical hypothesis argument goes: I cannot rule out the hypothesis that I am being deceived by a demon. Therefore, I cannot know anything about the external world. By similar token, a moral skeptical hypothesis argument is an argument that moral knowledge is impossible for agents like us in situations like ours, because we are unable to rule out some skeptical hypothesis. In this paper, I will defend a moral skeptical hypothesis argument—the Mor- al Closure Argument—against a number of objections. This argument is not novel, but it has rarely been taken seriously because it is widely held that the argument has serious flaws. My task in this paper is to argue that these supposed flaws are merely apparent; the Moral Closure Argument is much more potent than it might seem. 1. The Moral Closure Argument Let us introduce a few of the concepts that will feature prominently in the dis- cussion to come. Closure: If S knows that P, and P entails Q, and S believes that Q on the basis of competently deducing Q from P, while retaining knowledge of P throughout his reasoning, then S knows that Q.1 A closure argument is a kind of skeptical hypothesis argument that relies on Clo- 1 There are other ways to formulate Closure, but this is the most widely accepted version of the principle.
    [Show full text]
  • These Disks Contain My Version of Paul Spade's Expository Text and His Translated Texts
    These disks contain my version of Paul Spade's expository text and his translated texts. They were converted from WordStar disk format to WordPerfect 5.1 disk format, and then I used a bunch of macros and some hands-on work to change most of the FancyFont formatting codes into WordPerfect codes. Many transferred nicely. Some of them are still in the text (anything beginning with a backslash is a FancyFont code). Some I just erased without knowing what they were for. All of the files were cleaned up with one macro, and some of them have been further doctored with additional macros I wrote later and additional hand editing. This explains why some are quite neat, and others somewhat cluttered. In some cases I changed Spade's formatting to make the printout look better (to me); often this is because I lost some of his original formatting. I have occasionally corrected obvious typos, and in at least one case I changed an `although' to a `but' so that the line would fit on the same page. With these exceptions, I haven't intentionally changed any of the text. All of the charts made by graphics are missing entirely (though in a few cases I perserved fragments so you can sort of tell what it was like). Some of the translations had numbers down the side of the page to indicate location in the original text; these are all lost. Translation 1.5 (Aristotle) was not on the disk I got, so it is listed in the table of contents, but you won't find it.
    [Show full text]
  • The Likeness Regress: Plato's Parmenides 132Cl2-133A7
    THE LIKENESS REGRESS THE LIKENESS REGRESS PLATO'S PARMENIDES 132C12-133A 7 By KARL DARCY OTTO, B.A., M.A. A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy McMaster University © Copyright by Karl Darcy Otto, July 2003 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (2003) Mc Master University (Philosophy) Hamilton, Ontario TITLE: The Likeness Regress: Plato's Parmenides 132cl2-133a7 AUTHOR: Karl Darcy Otto, B.A. (Toronto), M.A. (McMaster) SUPERVISOR: Professor David L. Hitchcock NUMBER OF PAGES: x, 147 11 Abstract Since Forms and particulars are separate, Plato is left with the task of describing the way in which they are related. One possible way of con­ struing this relation is to suppose that particulars resemble Forms. Socrates proposes this and is refuted by Parmenides in the so-called Likeness Regress (Parmenzdes 132c12-133a7). This work comprises both an exposition and an analysis of the Likeness Regress. In the exposition, I work out the argument-form of the Like­ ness Regress in second-order logic (and later, show that first-order logic is sufficient). This symbolisation provides a baseline for the balance of the exposition, which has two focusses: first, I define what it means for par­ ticulars to resemble Forms, with the help of D. M. Armstrong's account of resemblance in A Theory of Unwersals; second, I demonstrate that the infinite regress argument of the Likeness Regress is indeed vicious, with the help of T. Roy's theory of regress arguments. In the analysis, I proceed with the premiss that an asymmetrical account of the resemblance relation would allow Socrates to escape Parmenides' refu­ tation.
    [Show full text]
  • Logical Empiricism / Positivism Some Empiricist Slogans
    4/13/16 Logical empiricism / positivism Some empiricist slogans o Hume’s 18th century book-burning passage Key elements of a logical positivist /empiricist conception of science o Comte’s mid-19th century rejection of n Motivations for post WW1 ‘scientific philosophy’ ‘speculation after first & final causes o viscerally opposed to speculation / mere metaphysics / idealism o Duhem’s late 19th/early 20th century slogan: o a normative demarcation project: to show why science ‘save the phenomena’ is and should be epistemically authoritative n Empiricist commitments o Hempel’s injunction against ‘detours n Logicism through the realm of unobservables’ Conflicts & Memories: The First World War Vienna Circle Maria Marchant o Debussy: Berceuse héroique, Élégie So - what was the motivation for this “revolutionary, written war-time Paris (1914), heralds the ominous bugle call of war uncompromising empricism”? (Godfrey Smith, Ch. 2) o Rachmaninov: Études-Tableaux Op. 39, No 8, 5 “some of the most impassioned, fervent work the composer wrote” Why the “massive intellectual housecleaning”? (Godfrey Smith) o Ireland: Rhapsody, London Nights, London Pieces a “turbulant, virtuosic work… Consider the context: World War I / the interwar period o Prokofiev: Visions Fugitives, Op. 22 written just before he fled as a fugitive himself to the US (1917); military aggression & sardonic irony o Ravel: Le Tombeau de Couperin each of six movements dedicated to a friend who died in the war x Key problem (1): logicism o Are there, in fact, “rules” governing inference
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]