Van Fraassen Research Articles

Educational assessment without numbers.

Psychometrics conceptualizes a person's proficiency (or ability, or competence), in a cognitive or educational domain, as a latent numerical quantity. Yet both conceptual and empirical studies have shown that the assumption of quantitative structure for such phenomena is unlikely to be tenable. A reason why most applications of psychometrics nevertheless continue to treat them as if they were numerical quantities may be that quantification is thought to be necessary to enable measurement. This is indeed true if one regards the task of measurement as the location of a measurand at a point on the real number line (the viewpoint adopted by, for example, the representational theory of measurement, the realist theory of measurement as the discovery of ratios, and Rasch measurement theory). But this is not the only philosophically respectable way of defining the notion of measurement. This paper suggests that van Fraassen's more expansive view of measurement as, in general, location in a logical space (which could be the real continuum, as in metrological applications in the physical sciences, but could be a different mathematical structure), provides a more appropriate conceptual framework for psychometrics. Taking educational measurement as a case study, it explores what that could look like in practice, drawing on fuzzy logic and mathematical order theory. It suggests that applying this approach to the assessment of intersubjectively constructed phenomena, such as a learner's proficiency in an inherently fuzzily-defined subject area, entails recognizing the theory-dependent nature of valid representations of such phenomena, which need not be conceived of structurally as values of quantities. Finally, some connections are made between this "qualitative mathematical" theorization of educational assessment, and the application of techniques from machine learning and artificial intelligence in this area.

A Contextual Account of Explanation in Logic

Recent approaches to the epistemology of logic, under the title of “anti-exceptionalism about logic”, explicitly adopt what is asserted to be the method of theory choice and the correct account of explanation in the sciences. Without embracing such a doctrine, but still keeping within a broad anti-exceptional trend, the current discussion proposes a contextual theory of explanation in logic, based on Bas van Fraassen’s framework of why-questions, which neither claims that logic is a science, nor relies on the metaphysical assumption of a validity-phenomenon to give account of the methodology of logic.

Should We Believe in Cells, or Just Remain Agnostic about Them? A Critical Analysis Through Bas van Fraassen’s Lenses.

For constructive empiricism, being observable or unobservable is defining for deciding about the empirical adequacy and epistemic value of theory components. The classification of microscopic images has been particularly debated. van Fraassen initially classified microscope images as unobservable and then as mere images, like rainbows. Afterwards, he claimed it is not irrational to maintain neutrality about their classification and left them in some kind of limbo between being images of something real or being mere images. Here, I provide an argument to classify microscopic images of cells as copy-qualified images. The argument is described in general terms to sustain that any unobservable entity that is derived from observable self-dividing entities and looks similar to the observable entity when detected under the microscope, corresponds to a copy-qualified image of something real. Because of the existence in nature of large observable cells that fulfil these properties, I conclude that microscopic images of cells are images of something real. This determines their empirical adequacy and epistemic value, making them hard-core and stable components of biological theories. The argument described provides a strategy to develop a more grained classification of what is observable and unobservable with the consequent implications for theory development.

From the philosophy of measurement to the philosophy of classification: Generalizing the problem of coordination and historical coherentism

The objective of this paper is twofold. First, I present a framework called historical coherentism (Chang, 2004; Tal, 2016; Van fraassen 2008) and argue that it is the best epistemological framework available to tackle the problem of coordination, an epistemic conundrum that arises with every attempt to provide empirical content to scientific theories, models or statements. Second, I argue that the problem of coordination, which has so far been theorized only in the context of measurement practices (Reichenbach, 1927; Chang, 2001; Tal, 2012; Van fraassen 2008), can be generalized beyond the philosophy of measurement. Specifically, it will be shown that the problem is embodied in classificatory practices and that, consequently, historical coherentism is well suited to analyze these practices as well as metrological ones. As a case study, I look at a contemporary debate in phylogenetics, regarding the evolutionary origin of a newly identified archaeal phylum called Methanonatronarchaeia. Exploring this debate through the lens of historical coherentism provides a detailed understanding of the dynamics of the field and a foothold for critical analyses of the standard rationale used by practitioners.

Running Mice and Successful Theories: The Limitations of a Classical Analogy

AbstractBas van Fraassen’s Darwinian explanation for the success of science has sparked four decades of discussion, with scientific realists and antirealists alike using biologically inspired reasoning to support their points of view. Based on critical engagement with van Fraassen’s proposal itself and later contributions by Stathis Psillos and K. Brad Wray, we claim that central arguments on both sides of this controversy suffer from an insufficient understanding of Darwinism and its underlying biological concepts. Adding the necessary biological background turns out to subvert the argumentative force of viewing the success of scientific theories as analogous to the behaviour of biotic entities. In conclusion, we sketch more productive ways of viewing the relationship between biology and scientific realism.

Pantheism from the Perspective of Wittgensteinian Nonoverlapping Magisteria (WNOMA)

This essay examines pantheism within the framework of the ‘faith and reason’ field in the philosophy of religion, with an emphasis on the question of the relationship between pantheism and empirical–scientific rationality. I address this question from what I call the Wittgensteinian Nonoverlapping Magisteria (WNOMA) approach to religion and science. WNOMA affirms a categorial difference between religious and scientific language and attitudes. This difference is interpreted with the help of Wittgenstein’s distinction between religious and scientific beliefs and van Fraassen’s distinction between religious and empiricist stances. This means that WNOMA is antievidentialist regarding religious beliefs and sees the experiential and instinctive aspects of religion as more fundamental than the systematic–intellectual aspect. Part of the variety in contemporary pantheism relates to the question of whether the emphasis is on the experiential–spiritual side of pantheism or its intellectual side, i.e., whether pantheism is ‘hot’ or ‘cold’. I examine a few telling examples: Spinoza, Einstein, the World Pantheism Movement and a recent awe-some argument for pantheism by Ryan Byerly. The main contribution of this paper is a critical reading of these versions of pantheism from a WNOMA perspective, through which I hope to establish the plausibility and show some of the persuasive force of the WNOMA approach to pantheism, focusing on the relation of pantheism to scientific rationality on the one hand and felt experience on the other. I argue that hotter kinds of pantheism can be intellectually virtuous if they find a way to combine the empiricist stance and pantheist religious stance, even without a developed philosophical or theological system. I also argue that colder and philosophically rigorous pantheism can be problematic if it assumes religious evidentialism, neglects the experiential part of pantheism in favor of intellectualism or/and confuses the spheres of science and religion.

Veritistic Teleological Epistemology, the Bad Lot, and Epistemic Risk Consistency

AbstractThis paper connects veritistic teleological epistemology, VTE, with the epistemological dimension of the scientific realism debate. VTE sees our epistemic activities as a tradeoff between believing truths and avoiding error. I argue that van Fraassen’s epistemology is not suited to give a justification for a crucial presupposition of his Bad Lot objection to inference to the best explanation (IBE), the presupposition that believing that p is linked to p being more likely to be true. This makes him vulnerable to a counterargument, tailored after Musgrave’s defense of IBE, which would result in a stalemate between them about presuppositions of rationality. I will, however, show that switching to VTE can justify van Fraassen’s presupposition. This leads to a dismissal of common IBE arguments for realism as presented by Boyd and Musgrave, but I also argue that a more cautious version of realism can be rescued from the Bad Lot objection. Finally, I raise some worries about epistemic risk-attitude consistency for constructive empiricists and develop an alternative anti-realist position.1

Religion, fiction, and facts

Religious fictionalism is a philosophical theory that aims to provide an alternative to the metaphysically realistic (theistic or God-centred) view of the nature of religious discourse. Religious fictionalism argues that being an atheist is compatible with a certain kind of personal religiousness because it is possible to understand traditional religious discourse as a useful fiction. In the first part of my presentation, I will outline the central ideas of religious fictionalism. After that, I highlight some key problems associated with it. These have to do with the “make-believe” attitude of the fictionalist account of faith and the problems linked with personal integrity. In the last part of the article, I will turn to metaphysical and epistemic presuppositions that play a central role in religious fictionalism. I will deal with these issues in the light of Bas van Fraassen’s empiricist views on science, secularism and religion.

A Minimal Probability Space for Conditionals

One of central problems in the theory of conditionals is the construction of a probability space, where conditionals can be interpreted as events and assigned probabilities. The problem has been given a technical formulation by van Fraassen (23), who also discussed in great detail the solution in the form of Stalnaker Bernoulli spaces. These spaces are very complex – they have the cardinality of the continuum, even if the language is finite. A natural question is, therefore, whether a technically simpler (in particular finite) partial construction can be given. In the paper we provide a new solution to the problem. We show how to construct a finite probability space mathrm {S}^#=left(mathrmOmega^#,mathrmSigma^#,mathrm P^#right) in which simple conditionals and their Boolean combinations can be interpreted. The structure is minimal in terms of cardinality within a certain, naturally defined class of models – an interesting side-effect is an estimate of the number of non-equivalent propositions in the conditional language. We demand that the structure satisfy certain natural assumptions concerning the logic and semantics of conditionals and also that it satisfy PCCP. The construction can be easily iterated, producing interpretations for conditionals of arbitrary complexity.

Explanatory virtues and reasons for belief

Abstract In this essay, I address an objection to inference to the best explanation due to Bas C. van Fraassen, according to which explanatory virtues cannot confirm a theory, since they make the theory more informative and thus less likely to be true given the probability axioms. I try to show that van Fraassen’s argument, once made precise, is deductively invalid, and that even an ampliative version of the argument (i) implies, absurdly, that no theory is confirmed by its fit with empirical data; (ii) fails to account for confirmatory closure under deduction; and (iii) falsely presupposes that a theory and its sub-theories can be competing explanations.

Bas van Fraassen’s Constructive Empiricism and Bruno Latour’s Constructivism

André Kukla has argued that both Bas van Fraassen’s constructive empiricism and Bruno Latour’s constructivism should be regarded as anti-realist approaches. In order to support his own claim, Kukla brought forward three parallels between them, namely: i) the observable/unobservable distinction in Bas van Fraassen’s constructive empiricism may be found in Bruno Latour’s constructivism, too; ii) the constructivist’s emphasis over the social construction of facts could be (although it was not) acknowledged by van Fraassen; iii) both constructive empiricism and constructivism are approaches about scientific practice. The aims of this paper are, firstly, to introduce and criticize the support gave by Kukla regarding his own conception and, secondly, to argue for that there is, instead, a stronger relationship between constructivism and realism than constructive empiricism and constructivism.

Grounding the Selectionist Explanation for the Success of Science in the External Physical World

AbstractI identify two versions of the scientific anti-realist’s selectionist explanation for the success of science: Bas van Fraassen’s original and K. Brad Wray’s newer interpretation. In Wray’s version, psycho-social factors internal to the scientific community – viz. scientists’ interests, goals, and preferences – explain the theory-selection practices that explain theory-success. I argue that, if Wray’s version were correct, then science should resemble art. In art, the artwork-selection practices that explain artwork-success appear faddish. They are prone to radical change over time. Theory-selection practices that explain theory-success in science are however not faddish. They are mostly stable; that is, long-lived and consistent over time. This is because scientists (explicitly or implicitly) subscribe to what I will call the testability norm: scientific theories must make falsifiable claims about the external physical world. The testability norm and not psycho-sociology explains the theory-selection practices that explain theory-success in science. Contra Wray, scientific anti-realists can then maintain that the external physical world (as expressed in the testability norm) explains theory-success.

Casting inference to the best explanation's lot with active inference

AbstractThis paper draws on the resources of computational neuroscience (an account of active inference under the free energy principle) to address Bas van Fraassen's bad lot objection to the inference to the best explanation (IBE). The general assumption of this paper is that IBE is a finessed form of active inferences that self‐organising systems perform to maximise the chance of their survival. Under this assumption, the paper aims to establish the following points: first, the capacity to learn to perform explanatory inferences comes with evolutionary privileges; second, adaptive actions guide beliefs and beliefs are action‐oriented; and third, IBE is not inconsistent with (approximate) Bayesianism but plays a heuristic role to it.

О том, как когнитивная семантика Гегеля фундирует «IV правило экспериментальной философии» Ньютона и тем самым подрывает «конструктивный эмпиризм» ван Фраасена

Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason developed an insightful, incisive semantics of singular, specifically cognitive reference to particulars, which justifies important consequences for epistemology and philosophy of science; it holds altogether independently of transcendental idealism and remains cogent today. Disentangling this cognitive semantics from transcendental idealism is Hegel’s achievement. Here I demonstrate that this cognitive semantics directly and powerfully undergirds Newton’s methodological Rule IV, thus further supporting Newton’s causal realism regarding gravitational force. I first consider Newton’s Rule IV of experimental philosophy and its role in his justification of causal realism regarding gravitational force (§ 2). Then I summarise this cognitive semantics (§ 3) and show how it is embedded within Rule IV and thus strongly supports Newton’s rule (§ 4). This result exposes a crucial, previously unrecognised fallacy in Bas van Fraassen’s core argument for his anti-realist “constructive empiricism”, a fallacy central to many common objections to causal realism, especially in the sciences (§ 5). This problem reveals a second inadequacy of constructive empiricism, in short, that it, so to speak, is itself “empirically inadequate”, insofar as it is not at all adequate to Newton’s classical mechanics (§ 6). This inadequacy highlights a chronic empiricist misunderstanding of Newtonian mechanics (§ 7). Furthermore, this cognitive semantics contributes to an improved “semantic interpretation” of scientific theories, in part because it undercuts the mistaken idea that physical laws literally “lie” (§ 8). In these regards, Newton, Kant and Hegel provide crucial insights for contemporary history and philosophy of science (§ 9).

Stance Pluralism, Scientology, and the Problem of Relativism

Inspired by Bas van Fraassen’s Stance Empiricism, Anjan Chakravartty has developed a pluralistic account of what he calls epistemic stances towards scientific ontology. In this paper, I examine whether Chakravartty’s stance pluralism can exclude epistemic stances that licence pseudo-scientific practices like those found in Scientology. I argue that it cannot. Chakravartty’s stance pluralism is therefore prone to a form of debilitating relativism. Consequently, we need (1) some ground or constraint in relation to which epistemic stances can be ranked by degrees, and (2) some way to demarcate science from pseudo-science so that we know what epistemic stances are about. Regarding (1), I argue that empirical detectability can serve as the ground in relation to which epistemic stances are ranked by degrees. Regarding (2), I argue for ranking sciences on a continuum according to established institutional criteria, rather than attempting to draw a strict demarcation.

Scientific Realism and Blocking Strategies*

ABSTRACT My target is the epistemological dimension of the realism debate. After establishing a stance voluntarist framework with a Jamesian background, drawing mostly on Wylie, Chakravarty, and van Fraassen, I argue that current voluntarists are too permissive. I show that especially various anti-realist stances but also some realist and selective realist stances block themselves from refutation by the history of science. I argue that such stances should be rejected. Finally, I propose that any disagreement that cannot be resolved by this strategy frequently boils down to an epistemic value disagreement about balancing the truth-goal.

Reflecting on diachronic Dutch books

AbstractConditionalization governs how to reallocate credence in light of new evidence. One prominent argument in favor of Conditionalization holds that an agent who violates it is vulnerable to a diachronic Dutch book: a series of acceptable bets offered at multiple times that inflict a sure loss. van Fraassen argues that an agent who violates the Principle of Reflection is likewise vulnerable to a diachronic Dutch book. He concludes that agents should conform to both Conditionalization and Reflection. Some authors reply that Reflection is implausible and hence that there must be something wrong with diachronic Dutch book arguments. Other authors try to isolate a principled difference between the Dutch book argument for Conditionalization and the Dutch book argument for Reflection, such that the former argument may succeed even though the latter fails. I pursue a version of this strategy. I contend that, once we properly elucidate the notion of sure loss, non‐reflectors are not vulnerable to a sure loss. An agent who violates Reflection is not thereby subject to a diachronic Dutch book. Appearances to the contrary result from an unmotivated focus upon an overly narrow set of gambling scenarios.

Is it possible to rehabilitate empiricism in Science Teaching? Pragmatic virtue from the anti-realist perspective of Bas van Fraassen

Resumo: Examinamos aspectos da falência do ideal positivista na Ciência e de sua associação com o empirismo, particularmente no contexto do ensino de ciências. Argumentamos, contra uma pressuposição comum neste contexto, que o empirismo não é necessariamente associado ao positivismo. Para isso, apresentamos como contraexemplo a concepção epistemológica antirrealista do filósofo holandês Bas C. van Fraassen: o empirismo construtivo. Destacamos, na obra do autor, sua concepção pragmática da explicação e apontamos possíveis contribuições de suas ideias ao ensino. A partir desse referencial, mostramos que a desmistificação da ciência como verdade é um ideal compatível com o empirismo e que a atribuição de sentido ao conhecimento científico não requer aceitá-lo como verdadeiro.

Neo-Pyrrhonism, Empiricism, and Scientific Activity

Pyrrhonism involves the inability to defend claims about the unobservable world, or, more generally, about what is really going on beyond the phenomena (SEXTUS EMPIRICUS, 1994). As a result, the Pyrrhonist is not engaged in developing a philosophical doctrine, at least in the sense of defending a view about the underlying features of reality. The issue then arises as to whether the Pyrrhonist also has something positive to say about our knowledge of the world, while still keeping Pyrrhonism. In this paper, I develop a positive neo-Pyrrhonist attitude, indicating that we can use this attitude to make sense of important aspects of science and empirical knowledge. To do that, I explore the connection between this revived form of Pyrrhonism and contemporary versions of empiricism, in particular constructive empiricism (VAN FRAASSEN, 1980, 1989, 2002, 2008). Although constructive empiricism is not a form of skepticism, there are important elements in common between constructive empiricism and Pyrrhonism. The resulting form of Pyrrhonism suggests that there is something right about the original stance articulated by Sextus Empiricus, and that suitably formulated it provides an insightful approach to think about empirical knowledge (PORCHAT PEREIRA, 2006, for the original inspiration behind neoPyrrhonism).

Introduction: Measurement at the Crossroads

Introduction: Measurement at the Crossroads