David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 84 (65):129- (2009)
P. M. S. Hacker 1. The poverty of philosophy as a science Throughout its history philosophy has been thought to be a member of a community of intellectual disciplines united by their common pursuit of knowledge. It has sometimes been thought to be the queen of the sciences, at other times merely their under-labourer. But irrespective of its social status, it was held to be a participant in the quest for knowledge – a cognitive discipline. Cognitive disciplines may be a priori or empirical. The distinction between what is a priori and what is empirical is epistemological. It turns, as Frege noted, on the ultimate justification for holding something to be true.1 If the truths which a cognitive discipline attains are warranted neither by observation nor by experiment (nor by inference therefrom), then they are a priori. Otherwise they are empirical. The natural and moral sciences (the Geisteswissenschaften) strive for and attain empirical knowledge.2 The mathematical sciences are a priori. Cognitive disciplines have a distinctive subject matter, concerning which they aim to add to human knowledge. Physics deals with matter, motion, and energy, chemistry with the constitution of stuffs out of elements, biology with the nature of living beings, history with ‘the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind’ (Gibbon), and so forth. The empirical sciences aim not only to discover truths but also to explain the phenomena they study. The natural sciences produce theories (typically with predictive powers) to explain the facts and laws they discover. The moral sciences too aim to explain the phenomena they study – although not to the same extent by way of theory and general laws; and their predictive powers, if any, are more limited. Mathematics and logic strive to produce theorems by means of proofs, and are..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
J. L. Austin (1979). Philosophical Papers. Oxford University Press.
Saul A. Kripke (1980/1998). Naming and Necessity. Harvard University Press.
Bertrand Russell (1912/2004). The Problems of Philosophy. Barnes & Noble Books.
Citations of this work BETA
Renia Gasparatou (2013). Naturalising Austin. Acta Analytica 28 (3):329-343.
Bob Plant (2012). Philosophical Diversity and Disagreement. Metaphilosophy 43 (5):567-591.
Similar books and articles
Lee C. McIntyre (2004). Redescription and Descriptivism in the Social Sciences. Behavior and Philosophy 32 (2):453 - 464.
D. M. Armstrong (2006). The Scope and Limits of Human Knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 84 (2):159 – 166.
Alva Noë (2007). The Critique of Pure Phenomenology. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6 (1-2):231-245.
Mehmet Elgin (2003). Biology and A Priori Laws. Philosophy of Science 70 (5):1380-1389.
A. R. (2003). The Cognition-Knowledge Distinction in Kant and Dilthey and the Implications for Psychology and Self-Understanding. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 34 (1):149-164.
Helen De Cruz (2006). Towards a Darwinian Approach to Mathematics. Foundations of Science 11 (1-2):157-196.
Leon Horsten, Philosophy of Mathematics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Alexander Rosenberg (1994). Instrumental Biology, or, the Disunity of Science. University of Chicago Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads97 ( #9,492 of 1,088,601 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #20,058 of 1,088,601 )
How can I increase my downloads?