The Relevance of Descartes's Philosophy for Modern Philosophy of Science

SummaryI. Reputed shortcomings of Descartes as philosopher of science.II ‘Knowledge’ in mathematics and in physics. The ‘ontological’ postulates of Descartes's philosophy and philosophy of physics.III. The ‘foundations of dynamics’: ‘Newton's First Law of Motion’ and its status.IV. Descartes's conception of ‘hypothesis’: the competing claims of the ideal of the a priori in physics and the conception of retroductive inference. (The status of the mechanistic world picture.)V. Descartes's notion of ‘analysis’. The distinction between ‘procedure’ and ‘inference’. The notion of ‘induction’ and ‘understanding through models’: ‘Snell's Law of Refraction’.

Download Full-text

Universals in English Platonism

10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190608040.003.0008 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Brunello Lotti

Keyword(s):

A Priori ◽

Human Mind ◽

Ideal World ◽

Innate Ideas ◽

The Status ◽

Theological Voluntarism ◽

The Mind ◽

Finite Minds ◽

Objective Validity ◽

The Ideal

This chapter reconstructs the topic of universals in the English Platonists’ epistemologies and ontologies. More and Cudworth restrict universals to the mental realm, stating that whatsoever exists without the mind is singular. Despite this nominalistic principle, universal concepts are not inductive constructions, but primarily divine thoughts and secondarily a priori innate ideas in the human mind. The archetypal theory of creation and the connection of finite minds to God’s Mind ensure their objective validity, in antithesis to Hobbes’ phenomenalism and sensationalism. Norris shares the archetypal theory of creation, but refuses innatism, and his doctrine of universals is framed in terms of his theory of the ideal world inspired by Malebranche. Both the Cambridge Platonists and Norris, opposing theological voluntarism, discuss the status of ideas in God’s mind, which oscillate from being merely thoughts of the divine intellect to being its eternal objects.

Download Full-text

complementarity of sociology and psychology and their general scientific significance

LAPLAGE EM REVISTA ◽

10.24115/s2446-6220202171747p.390-395 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (1) ◽

pp. 390-395

Author(s):

Victor Andreevich Kanke ◽

Natalya Ilinichna Kiseleva ◽

Tatiana Nikolaevna Seregina ◽

Elena Vitalievna Tarakanovskaya ◽

Ilya Vadimovich Opryshko

Keyword(s):

Modern Philosophy ◽

Philosophy Of Science ◽

Scientific Theory ◽

Mental Processes ◽

Social Phenomena ◽

The Status ◽

General Scientific ◽

Scientific Significance

The nature of sociology and psychology is clarified accounting for the achievements of modern philosophy of science. The general scientific significance of these sciences is determined in accordance with said clarification. Any scientific theory functions, in particular, in the form of group and individual theories. In this connection, the general scientific significance of sociology and psychology becomes evident. The status of sociology is primarily determined by the study of group theories that have general scientific significance. The status of psychology is determined by individual theories. Its priority in this area is also indisputable. Therefore, same as sociology, psychology presents a science of auxiliary nature. Auxiliary sciences are necessary for the development of the content of the independent sciences. Unfortunately, the mainstream tendency is that both sociology and psychology are considered independent branches of science. In this regard, the status of sociology is determined by a certain class of social phenomena, and the status of psychology is determined by mental processes.

Download Full-text

Conclusion: Rethinking Punishment

10.1093/oso/9780190888589.003.0006 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Didier Fassin

Keyword(s):

Social Inequality ◽

Political Violence ◽

Social Order ◽

Social Groups ◽

The Social ◽

Ideal Language ◽

The Status ◽

The Ideal

If punishment is not what we say it is, if it is not justified by the reasons we invoke, if it facilitates repeat offenses instead of preventing them, if it punishes in excess of the seriousness of the act, if it sanctions according to the status of the offender rather than to the gravity of the offense, if it targets social groups defined beforehand as punishable, and if it contributes to producing and reproducing disparities, then does it not itself precisely undermine the social order? And must we not start to rethink punishment, not only in the ideal language of philosophy and law but also in the uncomfortable reality of social inequality and political violence?

Download Full-text

Self and Selves

10.1093/oso/9780198724957.003.0012 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Ralph C.S. Walker

Keyword(s):

Personal Identity ◽

Moral Philosophy ◽

A Priori ◽

The Status ◽

The Subject ◽

Synthetic A Priori

Kant is committed to the reality of a subject self, outside time but active in forming experience. Timeless activity is problematic, but that can be dealt with. But he holds that the subject of experience is not an object of experience, so nothing can be known about it; this raises a problem about the status of his own theory. But he ought to allow that we can know of its existence and activity, as preconditions of experience: the Critique allows that synthetic a priori truths can be known in this way. However, its identity conditions remain unknowable. Kant’s unity of apperception shares much with Locke’s continuity of consciousness, but does not determine the identity of a thing. Personal identity is bodily identity. Only Kant’s moral philosophy justifies recognizing other selves; it could warrant ascribing a similar status to animals.

Download Full-text

Oxford Studies in Epistemology Volume 6

10.1093/oso/9780198833314.001.0001 ◽

2019 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Keyword(s):

Decision Theory ◽

A Priori ◽

Formal Epistemology ◽

Ethics Of Belief ◽

Naturalized Epistemology ◽

New Developments ◽

The Status ◽

Important Field ◽

Belief Justification

Oxford Studies in Epistemology is a biennial publication offering a regular snapshot of state-of-the-art work in this important field. Under the guidance of a distinguished editorial board composed of leading epistemologists in North America, Europe and Australasia, it publishes exemplary papers in epistemology, broadly construed. Topics within its purview include: (a) traditional epistemological questions concerning the nature of belief, justification, and knowledge, the status of skepticism, the nature of the a priori, etc.; (b) new developments in epistemology, including movements such as naturalized epistemology, feminist epistemology, social epistemology, and virtue epistemology, and approaches such as contextualism; (c) foundational questions in decision-theory; (d) confirmation theory and other branches of philosophy of science that bear on traditional issues in epistemology; (e) topics in the philosophy of perception relevant to epistemology; (f) topics in cognitive science, computer science, developmental, cognitive, and social psychology that bear directly on traditional epistemological questions; and (g) work that examines connections between epistemology and other branches of philosophy, including work on testimony, the ethics of belief, etc. Topics addressed in volume 6 include the nature of perceptual justification, intentionality, modal knowledge, credences, epistemic supererogation, epistemic and rational norms, expressivism, skepticism, and pragmatic encroachment. The various writers make use of a variety of different tools and insights, including those of formal epistemology and decision theory, as well as traditional philosophical analysis and argumentation.

Download Full-text

Two Kindred Neo-Kantian Philosophies of Science: Pap’s The A Priori in Physical Theory and Cassirer’s Determinism and Indeterminism in Modern Physics

Journal of Transcendental Philosophy ◽

10.1515/jtph-2021-0001 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 0 (0) ◽

Author(s):

Thomas Mormann

Keyword(s):

Philosophy Of Science ◽

20Th Century ◽

Physical Theory ◽

A Priori ◽

Logical Empiricism ◽

Main Thesis ◽

Modern Physics ◽

Continental Tradition ◽

Determinism And Indeterminism ◽

Kantian Philosophy

Abstract The main thesis of this paper is that Pap’s The Functional A Priori in Physical Theory and Cassirer’s Determinism and Indeterminism in Modern Physics may be conceived as two kindred accounts of a late Neo-Kantian philosophy of science. They elucidate and clarify each other mutually by elaborating conceptual possibilities and pointing out affinities of neo-Kantian ideas with other currents of 20th century’s philosophy of science, namely, pragmatism, conventionalism, and logical empiricism. Taking into account these facts, it seems not too far fetched to conjecture that under more favorable circumstances Pap could have served as a mediator between the “analytic” and “continental” tradition thereby overcoming the dogmatic dualism of these two philosophical currents that has characterized philosophy in the second half the 20th century.

Download Full-text

When Does HARKing Hurt? Identifying When Different Types of Undisclosed Post Hoc Hypothesizing Harm Scientific Progress

Review of General Psychology ◽

10.1037/gpr0000128 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 21 (4) ◽

pp. 308-320 ◽

Cited By ~ 26

Author(s):

Mark Rubin

Keyword(s):

Philosophy Of Science ◽

Present Article ◽

Literature Search ◽

A Priori ◽

Scientific Progress ◽

Research Report ◽

Research Results ◽

Different Types ◽

Replication Crisis ◽

Post Hoc

Hypothesizing after the results are known, or HARKing, occurs when researchers check their research results and then add or remove hypotheses on the basis of those results without acknowledging this process in their research report ( Kerr, 1998 ). In the present article, I discuss 3 forms of HARKing: (a) using current results to construct post hoc hypotheses that are then reported as if they were a priori hypotheses; (b) retrieving hypotheses from a post hoc literature search and reporting them as a priori hypotheses; and (c) failing to report a priori hypotheses that are unsupported by the current results. These 3 types of HARKing are often characterized as being bad for science and a potential cause of the current replication crisis. In the present article, I use insights from the philosophy of science to present a more nuanced view. Specifically, I identify the conditions under which each of these 3 types of HARKing is most and least likely to be bad for science. I conclude with a brief discussion about the ethics of each type of HARKing.

Download Full-text