5,725 research outputs found
In Defense of Weak Scientism: A Reply to Brown
In âWhatâs So Bad about Scientism?â (Mizrahi 2017), I argue that Weak Scientism, the view that âOf all the knowledge we have, scientific knowledge is the best knowledgeâ (Mizrahi 2017, 354; emphasis in original) is a defensible position. That is to say, Weak Scientism âcan be successfully defended against objectionsâ (Mizrahi 2017, 354). In his response to Mizrahi (2017), Christopher Brown (2017) provides more objections against Weak Scientism, and thus another opportunity for me to show that Weak Scientism is a defensible position, which is what I will do in this reply. In fact, I think that I have already addressed Brownâs (2017) objections in Mizrahi (2017), so I will simply highlight these arguments here
More in Defense of Weak Scientism
In my (2017a), I defend a view I call Weak Scientism, which is the view that knowledge produced by scientific disciplines is better than knowledge produced by non-scientific disciplines. Scientific knowledge can be said to be quantitatively better than non-scientific knowledge insofar as scientific disciplines produce more impactful knowledgeâin the form of scholarly publicationsâthan non-scientific disciplines (as measured by research output and research impact). Scientific knowledge can be said to be qualitatively better than non-scientific knowledge insofar as such knowledge is explanatorily, instrumentally, and predictively more successful than non-scientific knowledge. Brown (2017a) raises several objections against my defense of Weak Scientism and I have replied to his objections (Mizrahi 2017b), thereby showing again that Weak Scientism is a defensible view. Since then, Brown (2017b) has reiterated his objections in another reply on SERRC. In this paper, I respond to Brown's objections, thereby showing once more that Weak Scientism is a defensible view
Why Gettier Cases Are Still Misleading: A Reply to Atkins
In this paper, I respond to Philip Atkinsâ reply to my attempt to explain why Gettier cases (and Gettier-style cases) are misleading. I have argued that Gettier cases (and Gettier-style cases) are misdealing because the candidates for knowledge in such cases contain ambiguous designators. Atkins denies that Gettierâs original cases contain ambiguous designators and offers his intuition that the subjects in Gettierâs original cases do not know. I argue that his reply amounts to mere intuition mongering and I explain why Gettier cases, even Atkinsâ revised version of Gettierâs Case I, still contain ambiguous designators
If Analytic Philosophy of Religion is Sick, Can It Be Cured?
In this paper, I argue that, if âthe overrepresentation of Christian theists in analytic philosophy of religion is unhealthy for the field, since they would be too much influenced by prior beliefs when evaluating religious argumentsâ (De Cruz and De Smedt (2016), 119), then a first step toward a potential remedy is this: analytic philosophers of religion need to restructure their analytical tasks. For one way to mitigate the effects of confirmation bias, which may be influencing how analytic philosophers of religion evaluate arguments in Analytical Philosophy of Religion (APR), is to consider other points of view. Applied to APR, this means considering religious beliefs, questions, and arguments couched in non-Christian terms. In this paper, I focus on Islam in particular. My aim is to show that Islam is a fertile ground of philosophical questions and arguments for analytic philosophers of religion to engage with. Engaging with questions and arguments couched in non-Christian terms would help make work in APR more diverse and inclusive of religions other than Christianity, which in turn would also be a first step toward attracting non-Christians to APR
The (Lack of) Evidence for the Kuhnian Image of Science
In their reviews of The Kuhnian Image of Science: Time for a Decisive Transformation? (2018), both Markus Arnold (2018) and Amanda Bryant (2018) complain that the contributors who criticize Kuhnâs theory of scientific change have misconstrued his philosophy of science and they praise those who seek to defend the Kuhnian image of science. In what follows, then, I would like to address their claims about misconstruing Kuhnâs theory of scientific change. But my focus here, as in the book, will be the evidence (or lack thereof) for the Kuhnian image of science. I will begin with Arnoldâs review and then move on to Bryantâs review
How to Play the âPlaying Godâ Card
When the phrase âplaying Godâ is used in debates concerning the use of new technologies, such as cloning or genetic engineering, it is usually interpreted as a warning not to interfere with Godâs creation or nature. I think that this interpretation of âplaying Godâ arguments as a call to non-interference with nature is too narrow. In this paper, I propose an alternative interpretation of âplaying Godâ arguments. Taking an argumentation theory approach, I provide an argumentation scheme and accompanying critical questions that capture the moral concerns expressed by âplaying Godâ arguments. If I am right, then âplaying Godâ arguments should be understood, not as a warning to leave Godâs creation or nature alone, but rather as an invitation to think carefully about all the ways in which the use of new technologies could go seriously wrong
You Canât Handle the Truth: Knowledge = Epistemic Certainty
In this discussion note, I put forth an argument from the factivity of knowledge for the conclusion that knowledge is epistemic certainty. If this argument is sound, then epistemologists who think that knowledge is factive are thereby also committed to the view that knowledge is epistemic certainty
What Isnât Obvious about âobviousâ: A Data-driven Approach to Philosophy of Logic
It is often said that âevery logical truth is obviousâ (Quine 1970: 82), that the âaxioms and rules of logic are true in an obvious wayâ (Murawski 2014: 87), or that âlogic is a theory of the obviousâ (Sher 1999: 207). In this chapter, I set out to test empirically how the idea that logic is obvious is reflected in the scholarly work of logicians and philosophers of logic. My approach is data-driven. That is to say, I propose that systematically searching for patterns of usage in databases of scholarly works, such as JSTOR, can provide new insights into the ways in which the idea that logic is obvious is reflected in logical and philosophical practice, i.e., in the arguments that logicians and philosophers of logic actually make in their published work
Weak Scientism Defended Once More: A Reply to Wills
Bernard Wills (2018) joins Christopher Brown (2017, 2018) in criticizing my defense of Weak Scientism (Mizrahi 2017a, 2017b, 2018a). Unfortunately, it seems that Wills did not read my latest defense of Weak Scientism carefully, nor does he cite any of the other papers in my exchange with Brown
Scientific Progress: Why Getting Closer to Truth Is Not Enough
ABSTRACTThis discussion note aims to contribute to the ongoing debate over the nature of scientific progress. I argue against the semantic view of scientific progress, according to which scientific progress consists in approximation to truth or increasing verisimilitude. If the semantic view of scientific progress were correct, then scientists would make scientific progress simply by arbitrarily adding true disjuncts to their hypotheses or theories. Given that it is not the case that scientists could make scientific progress simply by arbitrarily adding true disjuncts to their hypotheses or theories, it follows that the semantic view of scientific progress is incorrect
- âŠ