Search

I 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do why-interrogatives work? How do they express the questions they express, in the contexts in which they express them? In this essay, I argue that, at a fundamental level, why-interrogatives work just like other wh-interrogatives, particularly other adjunct wh-interrogatives, and they express the questions they express, in the contexts in which they express them, by the same means that other wh-interrogatives do. These conclusions go against a trend in recent work on why-interrogatives, which holds that they are syntactically and semantically unlike other wh-interrogatives. Since the claim that why-interrogatives are unlike other wh-interrogatives has been taken to support various philosophical theses about the nature of why-questions and explanation, showing that why-interrogatives are just like other wh-interrogatives undermines this line of support for these theses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is an attempt to answer the following question in the affirmative: Is it possible to draw a parallel between science and art? To carry out this task successfully, Bas van Fraassen's account on the subject is introduced and discussed. The prominent philosopher of science has frequently presented solid arguments that demonstrate points of proximity between these two fields of human activity. He stresses that science and art should both be considered as domains of representational nature. On this ground, he sets off to show that science, as is the case with art, bears a decisive pragmatic aspect, often depends on inaccuracy in order to achieve its aim, and manifests an openness to interpretational pluralism. Eventually, it becomes evident that van Fraassen tackles the issue of the science-art relation to reinforce his antirealist philosophical stance and undermine key concepts of scientific realism. Still, his effort to 'save' antirealism while making a major contribution to lift the prevalent notion that science and art are worlds apart is truly stimulating. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Can a constructive empiricist make sense of scientific representation? Usually, a scientific model is an abstract entity (e.g., formulated in set theory), and scientific representation is conceptualized as an intentional relation between scientific models and certain aspects of the world. On this conception, since both the models and the representation relation are abstract, a constructive empiricist, who is not committed to the existence of abstract entities, would be unable to invoke these notions to make sense of scientific representation. In this paper, instead of understanding representation as a relation between abstract entities, I focus on the activity of representing, and argue that it provides a way of making sense of representation within the boundaries of empiricism. The activity of representing doesn’t deal with abstract entities, but with concrete ones, such as inscriptions, templates, and blueprints. In the end, by examining the practice of representing, rather than an artificially reified product—the representation—the constructive empiricist has the resources to make sense of scientific representation in empiricist terms.

Bas van Fraassen endorses both common-sense realism — the view, roughly, that the ordinary macroscopic objects that we take to exist actually do exist — and constructive empiricism — the view, roughly, that the aim of science is truth about the observable world. But what happens if common-sense realism and science come into conflict? I argue that it is reasonable to think that they could come into conflict, by giving some motivation for a mental monist solution to the measurement problem of quantum mechanics. I then consider whether, in a situation where science favors the mental monist interpretation, van Fraassen would want to give up common-sense realism or would want to give up science.

I offer a view of the aims and responsibilities of science, and use it to analyze critically van Fraassen’s view that ‘objectifying inquiry’ is fundamental to the nature of science.

We have some justified beliefs about modal matters. A modal epistemology should explain what’s involved in our having that justification. Given that we’re realists about modality, how should we expect that explanation to go? In the first part of this essay, I suggest an answer to this question based on an analogy with games. Then, I outline a modal epistemology that fits with that answer. According to a theory-based epistemology of modality, you justifiably believe thatpif (a) you justifiably believe a theory that says thatpand (b) you believepon the basis of that theory. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Bas van Fraassen's recent book Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective () modifies and refines the 'constructive empiricism' of The Scientific Image () in a number of ways. This paper investigates the changes concerning one of the most controversial aspects of the overall position, that is, van Fraassen's agnosticism concerning the veridicality of microscopic observation. The paper tries to make plausible that the new formulation of this agnosticism is an advance over the older rendering. The central part of this investigation is an attempt to answer Marc Alspector-Kelly's -criticism of an early () version of van Fraassen's new position. Alspector-Kelly's contribution it is to date the most extensive attack on van Fraassen's twenty-first-century work on the topic of microscopic observation. One of the central ideas emerging from the present discussion is a link between the debate over the veridicality of microscopic observation and the issue of the theory-ladenness of experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the debate between realists and empiricists in the philosophy of science drags on, one point of consensus has emerged: no one wants to be a manifestationalist. The manifestationalist is a kind of radical empiricist who argues that science provides theories that aim neither at a true picture of the entire world, nor even an empirically adequate picture that captures the world in all its observable respects. For manifestationalists, science aims only at providing theories that are true to the observed aspects of reality. If the guiding idea of empiricism is that experience, and experience alone, provides us with knowledge about the world, then manifestationalism is an exceptionally strict empiricist perspective on science. Manifestationalism has primarily served within a reductio: certain empiricist views and arguments, when taken to their logical conclusion, lead to manifestationalism and so cannot be correct. The reductio works only because manifestationalism is widely agreed to be a non-starter. However, this consensus against manifestationalism is based on a single argument. We contest this assessment of manifestationalism and show that the primary argument against manifestationalism fails to hit its target. We do not intend to offer a manifesto for manifestationalism. Rather, we aim to vindicate it from a false accusation. Manifestationalism may not be the correct view of science, but the objections levied against it so far can be met. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I argue that Constructive Empiricism (CE) is ambiguous between two interpretations: CE as a normative epistemology of science and CE as a descriptive philosophy of science. When they present CE, constructive empiricists write as if CE is supposed to be more than a normative epistemology of science and that it is meant to be responsible to actual scientific practices. However, when they respond to objections, constructive empiricists fall back on a strictly normative interpretation of CE. This ambiguity seems to make CE immune to objections in a ratherad hocfashion. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

A potential explanation of a fact is a hypothesis such that, if it were true, it would explain the fact in question. Let's suppose that we become aware of a fact and some potential explanations thereof. Let's also suppose that we would like to believe the truth. Given this aim, we can ask two questions. First, is it likely that one of these hypotheses is true? Second, given an affirmative answer to the first question, which one is it likely to be? Inference to the best explanation (IBE) offers answers to both questions. To the first, it says 'Yes'-assuming that at least one of the hypotheses would, if true, provide a satisfactory explanation of the fact under consideration. To the second, it says that the hypothesis most likely to be true is the one that scores best on the explanatory virtues: conservatism, modesty, simplicity, generality, and predictive power. Many philosophers have argued against IBE's answer to the first question. I am interested in an objection to its answer to the second. Many philosophers seem to think that it is unsustainable: they seem to think that even if we assume that one of the competing hypotheses is true, we should not think that IBE will help us to identify it. Or, more carefully, if these philosophers are doing what they appear to be doing-namely, offering critiques of IBE that don't depend on assumptions about the field of competing hypotheses-then their claim is that IBE will not help us to identify the truth. I believe that this is mistaken: the argument for believing it assumes a model of IBE that we have no reason to accept. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the impact of two formalizations of evolutionary biology on the antiselectionist critiques of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. It looks first at attempts to apply the syntactic framework of the physical sciences to biology in the twentieth century, and to their effect upon the ID movement. It then examines the more heuristic account of biological-theory structure, namely, the semantic model. Finally, it concludes by advocating the semantic conception and emphasizing the problems that the semantic model creates for ID's negative and positive theses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Classical empiricism leads to notorious problems having to do with the (at least prima facie) lack of an acceptable empiricist justification of empiricism itself. Bas van Fraassen claims that his idea of the 'empirical stance' can deal with such problems. I argue, however, that this view entails a very problematic form of voluntarism which comes with the threat of latent irrationality and normative inadequacy. However, there is also a certain element of truth in such a voluntarism. The main difficulty consists in finding an acceptable form of voluntarism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay examines the perspective from which Bas van Fraassen, in his book, The Empirical Stance, explains the project of empiricism. I argue that this perspective is a robustly transcendental perspective, which suggests that the tradition of empiricism lacks the resources to explain itself. I offer an alternative history of epistemic voluntarism in twentieth-century philosophy to the history van Fraassen himself provides, one that finds the novelty in van Fraassen's own views to be precisely his reintroduction of the knowing mind into the tradition of analytic philosophy of science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

the end of Lecture 3 of The Empirical Stance, Bas van Fraassen suggests that we see the change of view involved in scientific revolutions as being, at least in part, emotional. In this paper, I explore one plausible way of cashing out this suggestion. Someone's emotional approval of a description of the world, I argue, thereby shows that she takes herself to have reason to take that description seriously. This is true even if she is convinced-as a scientific community is when it considers alternative theories-that this description is false, that it is not the way the world is. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bas van Fraassen’s empiricist reading of Perrin’s achievement invites the question: whose doubts about atoms did Perrin put to rest? This comment recontextualizes the argument and applies the notion of empirical grounding to some contemporary work in behavioral biology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1997, five decades after the publication of the landmark Hempel-Oppenheim article “Studies in the Logic of Explanation”([1948], 1970) Wesley Salmon published Causality and Explanation, a book that re-addresses the issue of scientific explanation. He provided an overview of the basic approaches to scientific explanation, stressed their weaknesses, and offered novel insights. However, he failed to mention Mary Hesse’s approach to the topic and analyze her standpoint. This essay brings front and center Hesse’s approach to scientific explanation formulated in the 1960s and argues that rereading Hesse’s account one can overcome the criticisms addressed towards another influential theory of explanation that of Bas van Fraassen’s. Furthermore, it could bring the traditional philosophy of science into a fruitful conversation with science and technology studies and gender studies in science, technology and medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resumo Em 1985, Alan Musgrave levantou uma séria objeção contra a possibilidade, por parte de um empirista construtivo, de traçar de maneira coerente a distinção - crucial para ele - entre observáveis e inobserváveis. Em sua sucinta resposta, no mesmo ano, Bas van Fraassen afirmou que o argumento de Musgrave funciona somente no interior da chamada “abordagem sintática” das teorias, porém, perde sua força no contexto da “visão semântica”. Mas isso não é suficiente, segundo F. A. Muller, que publicou dois artigos (2004 e 2005), com o objetivo de estender a política epistêmica do empirismo construtivo. Para tanto, Muller propôs uma caracterização rigorosa da observabilidade, que só pode ser realizada utilizando-se a lógica modal. O resultado foi uma nova política epistêmica (mais ampla) para o empirismo construtivo, que o próprio Van Fraassen aparentemente endossou (MULLER; VAN FRAASSEN, 2008). Neste artigo, será mostrado que, todavia, a política epistêmica emendada de Muller é supérflua. Ademais, e sobretudo, o argumento de Musgrave parece, na verdade, ser um pseudoproblema.