David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Croatian Journal of Philosophy 10 (2):131-146 (2010)
This paper is based on a criterion recently proposed by Richard Fumerton for demarcating philosophy of mind and cognitive science. I suggest to extend it to a demarcation criterion between philosophy and science in general, and put it in the context of the historical changes of boundaries between the philosophical and the scientifi c fi eld. I point to a number of philosophical claims and approaches that have been made utterly obsolete by the advancement of science, and conjecture that a similar thing may happen in the future with today’s philosophy of mind: under the supposition that cognitive science manages to progress very successfully in a certain direction, our concepts for mental states could change, and the type of philosophical interest we put in them, thus reshaping thewhole debate on the subject
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Paul M. Quay (1974). Progress as a Demarcation Criterion for the Sciences. Philosophy of Science 41 (2):154-170.
Sebastian Lutz (2011). On an Allegedly Essential Feature of Criteria for the Demarcation of Science. The Reasoner 5 (8):125-126.
Sahotra Sarkar (2011). The Science Question in Intelligent Design. Synthese 178 (2):291 - 305.
Robert T. Pennock (2011). Can't Philosophers Tell the Difference Between Science and Religion? Demarcation Revisited. Synthese 178 (2):177-206.
B. D. (2000). A Pragmatic Approach to the Demarcation Problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 31 (2):249-267.
John Preston (1994). Methodology, Epistemology and Conventions: Popper's Bad Start. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:314 - 322.
James Blachowicz (2009). How Science Textbooks Treat Scientific Method: A Philosopher's Perspective. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (2):303--344.
Robert L. Morris (1987). Parapsychology and the Demarcation Problem. Inquiry 30 (3):241 – 251.
Nicholas Maxwell (forthcoming). Popper's Paradoxical Pursuit of Natural Philosophy. In J. Shearmur & G. Stokes (eds.), Cambridge Companion to Popper. Cambridge University Press.
Joseph Agassi (1995). Blame Not the Laws of Nature. Foundations of Science 1 (1):131-154.
Nancy L. Maull (1976). Reconstructed Science as Philosophical Evidence. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1976:119 - 129.
Sven Ove Hansson (2009). Cutting the Gordian Knot of Demarcation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 23 (3):237-243.
Deborah G. Mayo (1996). Ducks, Rabbits, and Normal Science: Recasting the Kuhn's-Eye View of Popper's Demarcation of Science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47 (2):271-290.
Rein Vihalemm & Peeter Müürsepp (2007). Philosophy of Science in Estonia. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 38 (1):167 - 191.
Massimo Pigliucci (2010). Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science From Bunk. University of Chicago Press.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads10 ( #148,407 of 1,102,791 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #296,987 of 1,102,791 )
How can I increase my downloads?