The continuity of inquiry and normative philosophy of science

被引:0
作者
Varga, Somogy [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Aarhus Univ, Dept Philosophy & Hist Ideas, Jens Chr Skous Vej 7, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
[2] Aarhus Univ, Interacting Minds Ctr, Aarhus, Denmark
关键词
conceptual analysis; normativity; science;
D O I
10.1111/meta.12513
中图分类号
B [哲学、宗教];
学科分类号
01 ; 0101 ;
摘要
This paper aims to contribute to debates about the nature of philosophical inquiry and its relation to science. The starting point is the Discontinuity View (DV), which holds that philosophy is discontinuous with science. Upon critically engaging two lines of argument in favor of DV, the paper presents and defends the Continuity View (CV), according to which philosophy and science are continuous forms of inquiry. The critical engagement sheds light on continuities between philosophical and scientific inquiry while underlining special normative competences of philosophical work. The final part of the paper uses these insights to offer a brief outline of a normative approach to philosophy of science.
引用
收藏
页码:655 / 667
页数:13
相关论文
共 52 条
[41]   Experimental Explication [J].
Schupbach, Jonah N. .
PHILOSOPHY AND PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH, 2017, 94 (03) :672-710
[42]  
Sober Elliott, 2008, Evidence and Evolution: The Logic Behind the Science
[44]  
Steinberger Florian., 2016, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, VSpring 2017
[45]   The instability of philosophical intuitions: Running hot and cold on Truetemp (Keith Lehrer) [J].
Swain, Stacey ;
Alexander, Joshua ;
Weinberg, Jonathan M. .
PHILOSOPHY AND PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH, 2008, 76 (01) :138-155
[46]   What can philosophy really do? [J].
Thomasson, Amie .
TPM-THE PHILOSOPHERS MAGAZINE, 2015, (71) :17-23
[47]   METAPHYSICS AND CONCEPTUAL NEGOTIATION [J].
Thomasson, Amie L. .
PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES, 2017, 27 (01) :364-382
[48]  
Van den Berghe P.L., 1967, Race and racism: A comparative perspective
[49]  
van Inwagen Peter., 2008, Journal of Ethics, V12, P327
[50]  
Weinberg JonathanM., 2001, PHILOS TOPICS, V29, P429, DOI [DOI 10.5840/PHILTOPICS2001291/217, https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics2001291/217]