Epistemic Thesis Research Articles

Scientism and the Problem of Self-Referential Incoherence

ABSTRACT In recent discussions on the possibilities and boundaries of science, the term ‘scientism’ has been used with multiple meanings. In this paper, this term is taken to refer to a strong epistemic thesis according to which scientific research is the only reliable source of knowledge. Strong epistemic scientism has been recently criticized from different points of view. A recurrent accusation is that the thesis is self-referentially incoherent. After giving an overview of the critical arguments and the answers given to them, I will try to point out that the debate concerning the correctness of scientism is based on a questionable background assumption about the role of higher-order justification.

A Minimal Metaphysics for Scientific Practice

<i>A Minimal Metaphysics for Scientific Practice</i>

What Determines the Reference of Names? What Determines the Objects of Thought

It is fairly widely accepted that Saul Kripke, Keith Donnellan, and others showed in the 1960s–1980s that proper names, in particular uses by speakers, can refer to things free of anything like the epistemic requirements posited by Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell. This paper separates two aspects of the Frege–Russell view of name reference: (1) the metaphysical thesis that names in particular uses refer to things in virtue of speakers thinking of those things and (2) the epistemic thesis that thinking of things requires a means of determining (in the sense of figuring out or identifying) which thing one is thinking of. My question is whether the Kripke–Donnellan challenge should lead us to reject (1), (2), or both. Contrary to a popular line of thinking that sees practices or conventions, rather than singular thinking, as determinative of linguistic reference, my answer is that we should reject only the epistemic thesis, not the metaphysical one.

Intersubjetividad y autorreferencialidad en la teoría ética de C.S. Nino

En El constructivismo ético, C.S. Nino sostuvo que “la discusión y la decisión intersubjetiva es el procedimiento más confiable de acceso a la verdad moral”. Esta tesis epistémica sobre el conocimiento moral posee claramente un costado político: a los fines de atender imparcialmente los intereses de todos los integrantes de una comunidad, “el intercambio de ideas y la necesidad de justificarse frente a los demás” acrecientan las posibilidades de éxito. Por el contrario, bastante menos claro resulta determinar en la obra de Nino las derivaciones de semejante tesis en lo tocante a la dimensión autorreferencial de la moralidad. Intentando llenar este vacío, exploraré en el presente trabajo las relaciones que deberían mediar entre la práctica social del discurso moral y el descubrimiento y la justificación de los ideales de conducta autorreferenciales.

Kuhn's Alternative Path: Science and the Social Resistance to Criticism

One of Thomas Kuhn's most important contributions to the epistemology of science has been overlooked and underanalyzed. Specifically, Kuhn was one of the first to approach the philosophy of science by examining the dynamics of scientific communities. I will show how this approach is vital to the epistemology of science by showing how two dynamics that Kuhn discusses, shared tacit knowledge and professional hierarchies, directly bear on Popper's epistemic thesis that the possibility of criticism is the crucial feature of science. Without this methodological shift, the potential social hindrances to science being a critical enterprise remain beyond the scope of our philosophies.

Against Moral Character Evaluations: The Undetectability of Virtue and Vice

I defend the epistemic thesis that evaluations of people in terms of their moral character as good, bad, or intermediate are almost always epistemically unjustified. (1) Because most people are fragmented (they would behave deplorably in many and admirably in many other situations), one’s prior probability that any given person is fragmented should be high. (2) Because one’s information about specific people does not reliably distinguish those who are fragmented from those who are not, one’s posterior probability that any given person is fragmented should be close to one’s prior—and thus should also be high. (3) Because being fragmented entails being indeterminate (neither good nor bad nor intermediate), one’s posterior probability that any given person is indeterminate should also be high—and the epistemic thesis follows. (1) and (3) rely on previous work; here I support (2) by using a mathematical result together with empirical evidence from personality psychology.

Mysteries and Scandals. Transcendental Naturalism and the Future of Philosophy

In this paper I shall discuss McGinn's transcendental naturalism (TN) and the reasons he gives in order to show that philosophy will always be just a cluster of mysteries without answers. I shall show that the three main arguments he gives for TN are inconclusive and that a modular architecture of the mind he presupposes is not committed to the epistemic thesis of TN, the idea that we are "cognitively closed" to answering some questions about consciousness, meaning, knowledge and the like.

Religion's evolutionary landscape needs pruning with Ockham's razor

Atran &amp; Norenzayan (A&amp;N) have not adequately supported the epistemic component of their proposal, namely, that God does not exist. A weaker, more probable hypothesis, not requiring that component – that the benefits of religious belief outweigh those of disbelief, even though we do not know whether or not God exists – is available. I counsel them to use Ockham's razor, eliminate their negative epistemic thesis, and accept the weaker hypothesis.

Descartes and Method: A Search for a Method in Meditations (review)

Reviewed by: Descartes and Method: A Search for a Method in Meditations Patrick Frierson Daniel E. Flage and Clarence A. Bonnen. Descartes and Method: A Search for a Method in Meditations. New York: Routledge, 1999. Pp. 332. Cloth, $90.00. The book has two parts. The first (Chapters 1-3 and an appendix) outlines Descartes's method of analysis, a method for discovering laws and clarifying ideas. The second (Chapters 4-10) offers a running commentary of the Meditations that can be read on its own and is valuable not only for specialists as a challenging comprehensive account but also for anyone looking for a concise and coherent secondary source. The method is taken from the Discourse and illustrated using the Optics. According to the authors, analysis in the search for laws "is a type of argument to the best explanation" (23) that involves "two different issues, discovery and confirmation" (21). In discovery, one isolates a phenomenon and posits one or more explanations (or causes) for it. In confirmation, one tests this explanation for "material truth" (whether it is recognized as true by the natural light). Then one shows how the phenomenon is "caused" by the explanation, and that it is the best explanation, and that it can be included in a systematic science. The discussion of analysis in the clarification of ideas argues against " 'the epistemic thesis,' that is, the thesis that all innate ideas are (materially) true and known to be true as soon as they are considered"(45). Most of the arguments here address the claim that innate ideas are known to betrue. These arguments are followed by an account of how analysis clarifies ideas through successive refinement, and an illustration of this method from Descartes's clarification of the idea of light in the Optics. The final chapter of the section on method defends the claim that Descartes uses "cause" to refer to formal rather than efficient causation. The authors then turn to the Meditations, offering a virtually line by line treatment of major themes, with attention to showing how the method outlined in part one structures the arguments of the Meditations. Meditations 1-3 "ascend" through discovery and preliminary confirmation, ending with a perfect, non-deceiving God as the best explanation of our idea of God. The final meditations "descend" from that best explanation to its implications. This descent confirms the explanation by showing its place in a system. The second part of the book also includes explanations of the part that conceptual clarifications play in the Meditations. Flage and Bonnen discuss the cogito argument, the account of the wax, the arguments for the existence of God, and the distinction of mind and body, all as examples of conceptual clarification through the method of analysis. In the case of God, for instance, Descartes begins with Hobbes's crude conception of God and clarifies it into the simple, clear, and distinct notion of a "most perfect being." The last chapter addresses the circle ascribed to Descartes by Arnauld: that the argument for the existence of God depends on the truth of clear and distinct ideas, which is only established on the basis of the existence of God. The authors argue that this is not a true circle, since Descartes assumes the material truth of clear and distinct ideas (which is indubitable) in his early argument and draws on their formal truth (in the mind of God) only after he proves the existence of God. They suggest their own circle, however: in his response to other concerns of Arnauld, Descartes suggests that God [End Page 436] stops a causal regress and thus commits himself to the formal truth of the idea of God, which he cannot independently justify. As one would expect in a book that offers a concise and unified interpretation of the Meditations, readers will find unnecessary asides and wish for attention to issues that are passed over. Moreover, though the authors support some views with extensive quotations, they leave others without textual support. The most unfortunate example is the identification of formal truth with actuality. The authors have several accounts of the distinction between formal and material truth and end their book with...

Between Mathematics and Physics

The distinction between mathematical and physical objects has probably played a greater role shaping the philosophy of mathematics than the distinction between observable and theoretical entities has had in defining the philosophy of science. All the major movements in the philosophy of mathematics may be seen as attempts to free mathematics of an abstract ontology or to come to terms with it. The reasons are epistemic. Most philosophers of mathematics believe that the abstractaess of mathematical objects introduces special difficulties in accounting for our ability to know them, to refer to them and even to entertain beliefs about them. These difficulties—supposedly absent even in the case of the most theoretical physical objects—make mathematical objects especially problematic and philosophically unattractive.Few have questioned this epistemic thesis or the ontic distinction it presupposes. LaVerne Shelton (1980) challenged the abstract-concrete distinction some years ago in an unpublished APA address.