What factors are involved in the resolution of scientific disputes? What factors make the resolut... more What factors are involved in the resolution of scientific disputes? What factors make the resolution of such disputes rational? The traditional view confers an important role on observation statements that are shared by proponents of competing theories. Rival theories make incompatible (sometimes contradictory) observational predictions about a particular situation, and the prediction made by one theory is borne out while the prediction made by the other is not. Paul Feyerabend, Thomas Kuhn, and Paul Churchland have called into question this account of theory-resolution. According to these philosophers, substantially different and competing scientific theories are semantically incommensurable: those theories do not share a common observation language. Two charges have been leveled against the semantic incommensurability theories. The first is that it ignores that some semantic features of observational terms (e.g., their reference) can be expressed by proponents of competing theories. The second is that the semantic incommensurability thesis is self-defeating. In this paper I will argue that both of these charges are true but not for the reasons usually given.
The generality problem is widely considered to be a devastating objection to reliabilist theories... more The generality problem is widely considered to be a devastating objection to reliabilist theories of justification. My goal in this paper is to argue that a version of the generality problem applies to all plausible theories of justification. Assume that any plausible theory must allow for the possibility of reflective justification - S's belief, B, is justified on the basis of S's knowledge that she arrived at B as a result of a highly (but not perfectly) reliable way of reasoning, R. The generality problem applies to all cases of reflective justification: Given that B is the product of a process-token that is an instance of indefinitely many belief-forming process-types (or BFPTs), why is the reliability of R, rather than the reliability of one of the indefinitely many other BFPTs, relevant to B's justificatory status? This form of the generality problem is restricted because it applies only to cases of reflective justification. But unless it is solved, the generality problem haunts all plausible theories of justification, not just reliabilist ones.
Standard Analytic Epistemology (SAE) names a contingently clustered class of methods and theses t... more Standard Analytic Epistemology (SAE) names a contingently clustered class of methods and theses that have dominated English-speaking epistemology for about the past half-century. The major contemporary theories of SAE include versions of foundationalism, coherentism, reliabilism, and contextualism. While proponents of SAE don't agree about how to define naturalized epistemology, most agree that a thoroughgoing naturalism in epistemology can't work. For the purposes of this paper, we will suppose that a naturalistic theory of epistemology takes as its core, as its starting-point, an empirical theory. The standard argument against naturalistic approaches to epistemology is that empirical theories are essentially descriptive, while epistemology is essentially prescriptive, and a descriptive theory cannot yield normative, evaluative prescriptions. In short, naturalistic theories cannot overcome the is-ought divide. Our main goal in this paper is to show that the standard argument against naturalized epistemology has it almost exactly backwards.
Are thought experiments nothing but arguments? I argue that it is not possible to make sense of t... more Are thought experiments nothing but arguments? I argue that it is not possible to make sense of the historical trajectory of certain thought experiments if one takes them to be arguments. Einstein and Bohr disagreed about the outcome of the clock-in-the-box thought experiment, and so they reconstructed it using different arguments. This is to be expected whenever scientists disagree about a thought experiment's outcome. Since any such episode consists of two arguments but just one thought experiment, the thought experiment cannot be the arguments.
The theory-ladenness of perception argument is not an argument at all. It is two clusters of argu... more The theory-ladenness of perception argument is not an argument at all. It is two clusters of arguments. The first cluster is empirical. These arguments typically begin with a discussion of one or more of the following psychological phenomena: (a) the conceptual penetrability of the visual system, (b) voluntary perceptual reversal of ambiguous figures, (c) adaptation to distorting lenses, or (d) expectation effects. From this evidence, proponents of theory-ladenness typically conclude that perception is in some sense "laden" with theory. The second cluster of arguments attempts to extract deep epistemological lessons from this putative fact. Some philosophers conclude that science is not (in any traditional sense) a rational activity; while others conclude that we must radically reconceptualize what scientific rationality involves. This paper has two aims: First, to propose a framework for understanding the empirical cluster of theory-ladenness arguments; and second, to begin to asses them. Once we clearly understand the structure of these arguments - where they begin and what they must show - much conventional wisdom about the significance of the psychological data turns out to be false.
The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 2012
In this paper, I propose a novel approach to investigating the nature of well-being and a new the... more In this paper, I propose a novel approach to investigating the nature of well-being and a new theory about well-being. The approach is integrative and naturalistic. It holds that a theory of well-being should account for two different classes of evidence-our commonsense judgments about well-being and the science of well-being (i.e., positive psychology). The network theory holds that a person is in the state of well-being if she instantiates a homeostatically clustered network of feelings, emotions , attitudes, behaviors, traits, and interactions with the world that tends to have a relatively high number of states that feel good, that lead to states that feel good, or that are valued by the agent or her culture.
Epistemology is supposed to guide our reason. This means that episte-mology is practically import... more Epistemology is supposed to guide our reason. This means that episte-mology is practically important because our beliefs so often play a decisive role in how we decide to act. We argue that in order to be effectively action-guiding, traditional epistemological theories must be supplemented with an account of significance of what makes one reasoning problem significant and another reasoning problem insignificant. We sketch the beginning of an account of significance that employs Signal Detection Theory. We then argue that any internalist theory of justification is not going to fit smoothly with a plausible account of significance. This calls into question the power of internalist theories of justification to effectively guide reason and action. Contemporary analytic epistemology is obsessed with justification. To many, this obsession might well seem perfectly natural and appropriate. After all, epistemology is the study of knowledge, and knowledge and justification are intimately related. Justification (or warrant) is usually taken to be that property that knowledge has but that (mere) true belief lacks. But there are many other epistemological issues and concepts that are worth exploring (and that are occasionally investigated), including rationality, epistemic virtue, epistemic excellence and epistemic significance. So, this raises the question: why the obsession with justification? Perhaps the answer is no deeper than professional intertia-but we tend to favour a different answer. The reason epistemologists lavish so much attention on justification is that it plays a particularly central role in how we ought to guide our cognitive endeavours. Justification is the primary epistemic guide to judgement. Other things being equal, one ought to hold justified beliefs rather than unjustified beliefs. This sort of response strikes us as exactly right. Epistemology is a serious business-or at least, it can and should be. But if epistemology really is a serious business, then guiding reason is less than half the battle. Guiding our reason and judgement is important primarily because our beliefs so often play a decisive role in how we decide to intervene in the world. If epistemology is to be practically efficacious, then it must be capable of doing more than merely guiding our reason.
Strategic Reliabilism is a framework that yields relative epistemic evaluations of belief-produci... more Strategic Reliabilism is a framework that yields relative epistemic evaluations of belief-producing cognitive processes. It is a theory of cognitive excellence, or more colloquially, a theory of reasoning excellence (where 'reasoning' is understood very broadly as any sort of cognitive process for coming to judgments or beliefs). First introduced in our book, Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment (henceforth EPHJ), the basic idea behind SR is that epistemically excellent reasoning is efficient reasoning that leads in a robustly reliable fashion to significant, true beliefs. It differs from most contemporary epistemological theories in two ways. First, it is not a theory of justification or knowledge-a theory of epistemically worthy belief. Strategic Reliabilism is a theory of epistemically worthy ways of forming beliefs. And second, Strategic Reliabilism does not attempt to account for an epistemological property that is assumed to be faithfully reflected in the epistemic judgments and intuitions of philosophers. If SR makes recommendations that accord with our reflective epistemic judgments and intuitions, great. If not, then so much the worse for our reflective epistemic judgments and intuitions.
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 2002
Alison Gopnik and Andrew Meltzoff have argued for a view they call the 'theory theory': theory ch... more Alison Gopnik and Andrew Meltzoff have argued for a view they call the 'theory theory': theory change in science and children are similar. While their version of the theory theory has been criticized for depending on a number of disputed claims, we argue that there is a fundamental problem which is much more basic: the theory theory is multiply ambiguous. We show that it might be claiming that a similarity holds between theory change in children and (i) individual scientists, (ii) a rational reconstruction of a Superscientist, or (iii) the scientific community. We argue that (i) is false, (ii) is non-empirical (which is problematic since the theory theory is supposed to be a bold empirical hypothesis), and (iii) is either false or doesn't make enough sense to have a truth-value. We conclude that the theory theory is an interesting failure. Its failure points the way to a full, empirical picture of scientific development, one that marries a concern with the social dynamics of science to a psychological theory of scientific cognition.
The flight to reference is a widely-used strategy for resolving philosophical issues. The three s... more The flight to reference is a widely-used strategy for resolving philosophical issues. The three steps in a flight to reference argument are: (1) offer a substantive account of the reference relation, (2) argue that a particular expression refers (or does not refer), and (3) draw a philosophical conclusion about something other than reference, like truth or ontology. It is our contention that whenever the flight to reference is invoked, there is a crucial step that is left undefended, and that without a defense of this step, the flight to reference is a fatally flawed strategy; it cannot succeed in resolving philosophical issues. In this paper we begin by setting out the flight to reference strategy and explaining what is wrong with arguments that invoke the strategy. We then illustrate the problem by considering arguments for and against elimative materialism. In the final section we argue that much the same problem undermines Philip Kitcher's attempt to defend scientific realism.
Social epistemology is autonomous. When applied to the same evidential situations, the principles... more Social epistemology is autonomous. When applied to the same evidential situations, the principles of social rationality and the principles of individual rationality sometimes recommend inconsistent beliefs. If we stipulate that reasoning rationally from justified beliefs to a true belief is normally sufficient for knowledge, the autonomy thesis implies that some knowledge is essentially social. When the principles of social and individual rationality are applied to justified evidence and recommend inconsistent beliefs and the belief endorsed by social rationality is true, then that true belief would be an instance of social knowledge but not individual knowledge.
Epistemic responsibility involves at least two central ideas. (V) To be epistemically responsible... more Epistemic responsibility involves at least two central ideas. (V) To be epistemically responsible is to display the virtue(s) epistemic internalists take to be central to justification (e.g., coherence, having good reasons, fitting the evidence). (C) In normal (non-skeptical) circumstances and in the long run, epistemic responsibility is strongly positively correlated with reliability. Sections 1 and 2 review evidence showing that for a wide range of real-world problems, the most reliable, tractable reasoning strategies audaciously flout the internalist's epistemic virtues. In Section 3, I argue that these results force us to give up either (V), our current conception of what it is to be epistemically responsible, or (C) the responsibility-reliability connection. I will argue that we should relinquish (V). This is likely to reshape our epistemic practices. It will force us to alter our epistemic judgments about certain instances of reasoning, to endorse some counterintuitive epistemic prescriptions, and to rethink what it is for cognitive agents to be epistemically responsible.
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2003
Scientific realism says of our best scientific theories that (1) most of their important posits e... more Scientific realism says of our best scientific theories that (1) most of their important posits exist and (2) most of their central claims are approximately true. Antirealists sometimes offer the pessimistic induction in reply: since (1) and (2) are false about past successful theories, they are probably false about our own best theories too. The contemporary debate about this argument has turned (and become stuck) on the question, Do the central terms of successful scientific theories refer? For example, Larry Laudan offers a list of successful theories that employed central terms that failed to refer, and Philip Kitcher replies with a view about reference in which the central terms of such theories did sometimes refer. This article attempts to break this stalemate by proposing a direct version of the pessimistic induction, one that makes no explicit appeal to a substantive notion or theory of reference. While it is premature to say that this argument succeeds in showing that realism is probably false, the direct pessimistic induction is not subject to any kind of reference-based objection that might cripple a weaker, indirect version of the argument. Any attempt to trounce the direct pessimistic induction with a theory of reference fails.
A heuristic is a rule of thumb. In psychology, heuristics are relatively simple rules for making ... more A heuristic is a rule of thumb. In psychology, heuristics are relatively simple rules for making judgments. A fast heuristic is easy to use and allows one to make judgments quickly. A frugal heuristic relies on a small fraction of the available evidence in making judgments. Typically, fast and frugal heuristics (FFHs) have, or are claimed to have, a further property: They are very reliable, yielding judgments that are about as accurate in the long run as ideal non-fast, non-frugal rules. This paper introduces some well-known examples of FFHs, raises some objections to the FFH program, and looks at the implications of those parts of the FFH program about which we can have some reasonable degree of confidence.
Our aim in this paper is to bring the woefully neglected literature on predictive modeling to bea... more Our aim in this paper is to bring the woefully neglected literature on predictive modeling to bear on some central questions in the philosophy of science. The lesson of this literature is straightforward: For a very wide range of prediction problems, statistical prediction rules (SPRs), often rules that are very easy to implement, make predictions than are as reliable as, and typically more reliable than, human experts. We will argue that the success of SPRs forces us to reconsider our views about what is involved in understanding, explanation, good reasoning, and about how we ought to do philosophy of science.
Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, 1998
Why should a thought experiment, an experiment that only exists in people's minds, alter our fund... more Why should a thought experiment, an experiment that only exists in people's minds, alter our fundamental beliefs about reality? After all, isn't reasoning from the imaginary to the real a sign of psychosis? A historical survey of how thought experiments have shaped our physical laws might lead one to believe that it's not the case that the laws of physics lie - it's that they don't even pretend to tell the truth. My aim in this paper is to defend an account of thought experiments that fits smoothly into our understanding of the historical trajectory of actual thought experiments and that explains how any rational person could allow an imagined, unrealized (or unrealizable) situation to change their conception of the universe.
In "Epistemology Naturalized" Quine famously suggests that epistemology, properly understood, "si... more In "Epistemology Naturalized" Quine famously suggests that epistemology, properly understood, "simply falls into place as a chapter of psychology and hence of natural science" (1969: 82). Since the appearance of Quine's seminal article, virtually every epistemologist, including the later Quine (1986: 664), has repudiated the idea that a normative discipline like epistemology could be reduced to a purely descriptive discipline like psychology. Working epistemologists no longer take Quine's vision in "Epistemology Naturalized" seriously. In this chapter, I will explain why I think this is a mistake.
What factors are involved in the resolution of scientific disputes? What factors make the resolut... more What factors are involved in the resolution of scientific disputes? What factors make the resolution of such disputes rational? The traditional view confers an important role on observation statements that are shared by proponents of competing theories. Rival theories make incompatible (sometimes contradictory) observational predictions about a particular situation, and the prediction made by one theory is borne out while the prediction made by the other is not. Paul Feyerabend, Thomas Kuhn, and Paul Churchland have called into question this account of theory-resolution. According to these philosophers, substantially different and competing scientific theories are semantically incommensurable: those theories do not share a common observation language. Two charges have been leveled against the semantic incommensurability theories. The first is that it ignores that some semantic features of observational terms (e.g., their reference) can be expressed by proponents of competing theories. The second is that the semantic incommensurability thesis is self-defeating. In this paper I will argue that both of these charges are true but not for the reasons usually given.
The generality problem is widely considered to be a devastating objection to reliabilist theories... more The generality problem is widely considered to be a devastating objection to reliabilist theories of justification. My goal in this paper is to argue that a version of the generality problem applies to all plausible theories of justification. Assume that any plausible theory must allow for the possibility of reflective justification - S's belief, B, is justified on the basis of S's knowledge that she arrived at B as a result of a highly (but not perfectly) reliable way of reasoning, R. The generality problem applies to all cases of reflective justification: Given that B is the product of a process-token that is an instance of indefinitely many belief-forming process-types (or BFPTs), why is the reliability of R, rather than the reliability of one of the indefinitely many other BFPTs, relevant to B's justificatory status? This form of the generality problem is restricted because it applies only to cases of reflective justification. But unless it is solved, the generality problem haunts all plausible theories of justification, not just reliabilist ones.
Standard Analytic Epistemology (SAE) names a contingently clustered class of methods and theses t... more Standard Analytic Epistemology (SAE) names a contingently clustered class of methods and theses that have dominated English-speaking epistemology for about the past half-century. The major contemporary theories of SAE include versions of foundationalism, coherentism, reliabilism, and contextualism. While proponents of SAE don't agree about how to define naturalized epistemology, most agree that a thoroughgoing naturalism in epistemology can't work. For the purposes of this paper, we will suppose that a naturalistic theory of epistemology takes as its core, as its starting-point, an empirical theory. The standard argument against naturalistic approaches to epistemology is that empirical theories are essentially descriptive, while epistemology is essentially prescriptive, and a descriptive theory cannot yield normative, evaluative prescriptions. In short, naturalistic theories cannot overcome the is-ought divide. Our main goal in this paper is to show that the standard argument against naturalized epistemology has it almost exactly backwards.
Are thought experiments nothing but arguments? I argue that it is not possible to make sense of t... more Are thought experiments nothing but arguments? I argue that it is not possible to make sense of the historical trajectory of certain thought experiments if one takes them to be arguments. Einstein and Bohr disagreed about the outcome of the clock-in-the-box thought experiment, and so they reconstructed it using different arguments. This is to be expected whenever scientists disagree about a thought experiment's outcome. Since any such episode consists of two arguments but just one thought experiment, the thought experiment cannot be the arguments.
The theory-ladenness of perception argument is not an argument at all. It is two clusters of argu... more The theory-ladenness of perception argument is not an argument at all. It is two clusters of arguments. The first cluster is empirical. These arguments typically begin with a discussion of one or more of the following psychological phenomena: (a) the conceptual penetrability of the visual system, (b) voluntary perceptual reversal of ambiguous figures, (c) adaptation to distorting lenses, or (d) expectation effects. From this evidence, proponents of theory-ladenness typically conclude that perception is in some sense "laden" with theory. The second cluster of arguments attempts to extract deep epistemological lessons from this putative fact. Some philosophers conclude that science is not (in any traditional sense) a rational activity; while others conclude that we must radically reconceptualize what scientific rationality involves. This paper has two aims: First, to propose a framework for understanding the empirical cluster of theory-ladenness arguments; and second, to begin to asses them. Once we clearly understand the structure of these arguments - where they begin and what they must show - much conventional wisdom about the significance of the psychological data turns out to be false.
The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 2012
In this paper, I propose a novel approach to investigating the nature of well-being and a new the... more In this paper, I propose a novel approach to investigating the nature of well-being and a new theory about well-being. The approach is integrative and naturalistic. It holds that a theory of well-being should account for two different classes of evidence-our commonsense judgments about well-being and the science of well-being (i.e., positive psychology). The network theory holds that a person is in the state of well-being if she instantiates a homeostatically clustered network of feelings, emotions , attitudes, behaviors, traits, and interactions with the world that tends to have a relatively high number of states that feel good, that lead to states that feel good, or that are valued by the agent or her culture.
Epistemology is supposed to guide our reason. This means that episte-mology is practically import... more Epistemology is supposed to guide our reason. This means that episte-mology is practically important because our beliefs so often play a decisive role in how we decide to act. We argue that in order to be effectively action-guiding, traditional epistemological theories must be supplemented with an account of significance of what makes one reasoning problem significant and another reasoning problem insignificant. We sketch the beginning of an account of significance that employs Signal Detection Theory. We then argue that any internalist theory of justification is not going to fit smoothly with a plausible account of significance. This calls into question the power of internalist theories of justification to effectively guide reason and action. Contemporary analytic epistemology is obsessed with justification. To many, this obsession might well seem perfectly natural and appropriate. After all, epistemology is the study of knowledge, and knowledge and justification are intimately related. Justification (or warrant) is usually taken to be that property that knowledge has but that (mere) true belief lacks. But there are many other epistemological issues and concepts that are worth exploring (and that are occasionally investigated), including rationality, epistemic virtue, epistemic excellence and epistemic significance. So, this raises the question: why the obsession with justification? Perhaps the answer is no deeper than professional intertia-but we tend to favour a different answer. The reason epistemologists lavish so much attention on justification is that it plays a particularly central role in how we ought to guide our cognitive endeavours. Justification is the primary epistemic guide to judgement. Other things being equal, one ought to hold justified beliefs rather than unjustified beliefs. This sort of response strikes us as exactly right. Epistemology is a serious business-or at least, it can and should be. But if epistemology really is a serious business, then guiding reason is less than half the battle. Guiding our reason and judgement is important primarily because our beliefs so often play a decisive role in how we decide to intervene in the world. If epistemology is to be practically efficacious, then it must be capable of doing more than merely guiding our reason.
Strategic Reliabilism is a framework that yields relative epistemic evaluations of belief-produci... more Strategic Reliabilism is a framework that yields relative epistemic evaluations of belief-producing cognitive processes. It is a theory of cognitive excellence, or more colloquially, a theory of reasoning excellence (where 'reasoning' is understood very broadly as any sort of cognitive process for coming to judgments or beliefs). First introduced in our book, Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment (henceforth EPHJ), the basic idea behind SR is that epistemically excellent reasoning is efficient reasoning that leads in a robustly reliable fashion to significant, true beliefs. It differs from most contemporary epistemological theories in two ways. First, it is not a theory of justification or knowledge-a theory of epistemically worthy belief. Strategic Reliabilism is a theory of epistemically worthy ways of forming beliefs. And second, Strategic Reliabilism does not attempt to account for an epistemological property that is assumed to be faithfully reflected in the epistemic judgments and intuitions of philosophers. If SR makes recommendations that accord with our reflective epistemic judgments and intuitions, great. If not, then so much the worse for our reflective epistemic judgments and intuitions.
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 2002
Alison Gopnik and Andrew Meltzoff have argued for a view they call the 'theory theory': theory ch... more Alison Gopnik and Andrew Meltzoff have argued for a view they call the 'theory theory': theory change in science and children are similar. While their version of the theory theory has been criticized for depending on a number of disputed claims, we argue that there is a fundamental problem which is much more basic: the theory theory is multiply ambiguous. We show that it might be claiming that a similarity holds between theory change in children and (i) individual scientists, (ii) a rational reconstruction of a Superscientist, or (iii) the scientific community. We argue that (i) is false, (ii) is non-empirical (which is problematic since the theory theory is supposed to be a bold empirical hypothesis), and (iii) is either false or doesn't make enough sense to have a truth-value. We conclude that the theory theory is an interesting failure. Its failure points the way to a full, empirical picture of scientific development, one that marries a concern with the social dynamics of science to a psychological theory of scientific cognition.
The flight to reference is a widely-used strategy for resolving philosophical issues. The three s... more The flight to reference is a widely-used strategy for resolving philosophical issues. The three steps in a flight to reference argument are: (1) offer a substantive account of the reference relation, (2) argue that a particular expression refers (or does not refer), and (3) draw a philosophical conclusion about something other than reference, like truth or ontology. It is our contention that whenever the flight to reference is invoked, there is a crucial step that is left undefended, and that without a defense of this step, the flight to reference is a fatally flawed strategy; it cannot succeed in resolving philosophical issues. In this paper we begin by setting out the flight to reference strategy and explaining what is wrong with arguments that invoke the strategy. We then illustrate the problem by considering arguments for and against elimative materialism. In the final section we argue that much the same problem undermines Philip Kitcher's attempt to defend scientific realism.
Social epistemology is autonomous. When applied to the same evidential situations, the principles... more Social epistemology is autonomous. When applied to the same evidential situations, the principles of social rationality and the principles of individual rationality sometimes recommend inconsistent beliefs. If we stipulate that reasoning rationally from justified beliefs to a true belief is normally sufficient for knowledge, the autonomy thesis implies that some knowledge is essentially social. When the principles of social and individual rationality are applied to justified evidence and recommend inconsistent beliefs and the belief endorsed by social rationality is true, then that true belief would be an instance of social knowledge but not individual knowledge.
Epistemic responsibility involves at least two central ideas. (V) To be epistemically responsible... more Epistemic responsibility involves at least two central ideas. (V) To be epistemically responsible is to display the virtue(s) epistemic internalists take to be central to justification (e.g., coherence, having good reasons, fitting the evidence). (C) In normal (non-skeptical) circumstances and in the long run, epistemic responsibility is strongly positively correlated with reliability. Sections 1 and 2 review evidence showing that for a wide range of real-world problems, the most reliable, tractable reasoning strategies audaciously flout the internalist's epistemic virtues. In Section 3, I argue that these results force us to give up either (V), our current conception of what it is to be epistemically responsible, or (C) the responsibility-reliability connection. I will argue that we should relinquish (V). This is likely to reshape our epistemic practices. It will force us to alter our epistemic judgments about certain instances of reasoning, to endorse some counterintuitive epistemic prescriptions, and to rethink what it is for cognitive agents to be epistemically responsible.
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2003
Scientific realism says of our best scientific theories that (1) most of their important posits e... more Scientific realism says of our best scientific theories that (1) most of their important posits exist and (2) most of their central claims are approximately true. Antirealists sometimes offer the pessimistic induction in reply: since (1) and (2) are false about past successful theories, they are probably false about our own best theories too. The contemporary debate about this argument has turned (and become stuck) on the question, Do the central terms of successful scientific theories refer? For example, Larry Laudan offers a list of successful theories that employed central terms that failed to refer, and Philip Kitcher replies with a view about reference in which the central terms of such theories did sometimes refer. This article attempts to break this stalemate by proposing a direct version of the pessimistic induction, one that makes no explicit appeal to a substantive notion or theory of reference. While it is premature to say that this argument succeeds in showing that realism is probably false, the direct pessimistic induction is not subject to any kind of reference-based objection that might cripple a weaker, indirect version of the argument. Any attempt to trounce the direct pessimistic induction with a theory of reference fails.
A heuristic is a rule of thumb. In psychology, heuristics are relatively simple rules for making ... more A heuristic is a rule of thumb. In psychology, heuristics are relatively simple rules for making judgments. A fast heuristic is easy to use and allows one to make judgments quickly. A frugal heuristic relies on a small fraction of the available evidence in making judgments. Typically, fast and frugal heuristics (FFHs) have, or are claimed to have, a further property: They are very reliable, yielding judgments that are about as accurate in the long run as ideal non-fast, non-frugal rules. This paper introduces some well-known examples of FFHs, raises some objections to the FFH program, and looks at the implications of those parts of the FFH program about which we can have some reasonable degree of confidence.
Our aim in this paper is to bring the woefully neglected literature on predictive modeling to bea... more Our aim in this paper is to bring the woefully neglected literature on predictive modeling to bear on some central questions in the philosophy of science. The lesson of this literature is straightforward: For a very wide range of prediction problems, statistical prediction rules (SPRs), often rules that are very easy to implement, make predictions than are as reliable as, and typically more reliable than, human experts. We will argue that the success of SPRs forces us to reconsider our views about what is involved in understanding, explanation, good reasoning, and about how we ought to do philosophy of science.
Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, 1998
Why should a thought experiment, an experiment that only exists in people's minds, alter our fund... more Why should a thought experiment, an experiment that only exists in people's minds, alter our fundamental beliefs about reality? After all, isn't reasoning from the imaginary to the real a sign of psychosis? A historical survey of how thought experiments have shaped our physical laws might lead one to believe that it's not the case that the laws of physics lie - it's that they don't even pretend to tell the truth. My aim in this paper is to defend an account of thought experiments that fits smoothly into our understanding of the historical trajectory of actual thought experiments and that explains how any rational person could allow an imagined, unrealized (or unrealizable) situation to change their conception of the universe.
In "Epistemology Naturalized" Quine famously suggests that epistemology, properly understood, "si... more In "Epistemology Naturalized" Quine famously suggests that epistemology, properly understood, "simply falls into place as a chapter of psychology and hence of natural science" (1969: 82). Since the appearance of Quine's seminal article, virtually every epistemologist, including the later Quine (1986: 664), has repudiated the idea that a normative discipline like epistemology could be reduced to a purely descriptive discipline like psychology. Working epistemologists no longer take Quine's vision in "Epistemology Naturalized" seriously. In this chapter, I will explain why I think this is a mistake.
Uploads
Papers by Michael Bishop
Paul Feyerabend, Thomas Kuhn, and Paul Churchland have called into question this account of theory-resolution. According to these philosophers, substantially different and competing scientific theories are semantically incommensurable: those theories do not share a common observation language.
Two charges have been leveled against the semantic incommensurability theories. The first is that it ignores that some semantic features of observational terms (e.g., their reference) can be expressed by proponents of competing theories. The second is that the semantic incommensurability thesis is self-defeating. In this paper I will argue that both of these charges are true but not for the reasons usually given.
Paul Feyerabend, Thomas Kuhn, and Paul Churchland have called into question this account of theory-resolution. According to these philosophers, substantially different and competing scientific theories are semantically incommensurable: those theories do not share a common observation language.
Two charges have been leveled against the semantic incommensurability theories. The first is that it ignores that some semantic features of observational terms (e.g., their reference) can be expressed by proponents of competing theories. The second is that the semantic incommensurability thesis is self-defeating. In this paper I will argue that both of these charges are true but not for the reasons usually given.