Definitions and Empirical Justification in Christian Wolff’s Theory of Science

2018 ◽  
pp. 149-176
2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-176
Author(s):  
Katherine Dunlop

This paper argues that in Christian Wolff’s theory of knowledge, logical regimentation does not take the place of experiential justification, but serves to facilitate the application of empirical information and clearly exhibit its warrant. My argument targets rationalistic interpretations such as R. Lanier Anderson’s. It is common ground in this dispute that making concepts “distinct” (articulating their component marks) issues in the premises on which all deductive justification rests. Against the view that concepts are made distinct only by analysis, which is carried out by the understanding independently of experience, I contend that for Wolff some distinct concepts are arrived at through experience. I emphasize that Wolff countenances empirical methods of obtaining distinct concepts even in mathematics. This striking feature of his view indicates how its empiricist elements can be reconciled with his injunction to follow “mathematical” method.


1989 ◽  
Vol 34 (12) ◽  
pp. 1130-1131
Author(s):  
David P. Maloney

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 115
Author(s):  
Dimisqi Chaerul Anam

This writing is try to explain and proven the truth of Kalam Muhammad in Quran especially al mukminun : 12-14 verses. Two important things in this explanation are first , theory of science is not wrong and some part of them have relevancy with quran. Modern science find the synchronizationof qur’an in the step of creat human embryo whereas quran was arrival in 7 century. Secondly the truth of quran as wahyu which the contain and meaning had been impossible could be done by people in the seven century so there is no suspicion with quran.


1980 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 667-670
Author(s):  
G. H. Merrill
Keyword(s):  

1895 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 404-407
Author(s):  
A. H. Lloyd
Keyword(s):  

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 122-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Butler ◽  
Jonathan Homola

Researchers studying discrimination and bias frequently conduct experiments that use racially distinctive names to signal race. The ability of these experiments to speak to racial discrimination depends on the excludability assumption that subjects’ responses to these names are driven by their reaction to the individual’s putative race and not some other factor. We use results from an audit study with a large number of aliases and data from detailed public records to empirically test the excludability assumption undergirding the use of racially distinctive names. The detailed public records allow us to measure the signals about socioeconomic status and political resources that each name used in the study possibly could send. We then reanalyze the audit study to see whether these signals predict legislators’ likelihood of responding. We find no evidence that politicians respond to this other information, thus providing empirical support for the excludability assumption.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document