David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 140 (3):331-353 (2004)
Van Fraassen maintains that the information that we canglean from experience is limited to those entities and processes that are detectable bymeans of our unaided senses. His challenge to the realist, I suggest, is that the attemptto inferentially transcend those limits amounts to a reversion to rationalism. Under pressurefrom such examples as microscopic observation, he has recently widened the scope of thephenomena to include object-like experiences without empirical objects of experience.With this change in mind, I argue that van Fraassen needs an account of perception whoseconsequence is that we can only see what we see with the unaided eye. I then argue thatreflection on the epistemically significant aspects of the perceptual process rendersvan Fraassen's characterization of the limits of experience implausible; technologicallyenhanced perception brings ``unobservables'' within those limits. An empiricismthat is compatible with realism results
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jeff Foss (1991). On Saving the Phenomena and the Mice: A Reply to Bourgeois Concerning Van Fraassen's Image of Science. Philosophy of Science 58 (2):278-287.
William Seager (1988). Scientific Anti-Realism and the Epistemic Community. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:181 - 187.
Patrick Maher (1990). Acceptance Without Belief. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:381 - 392.
Stathis Psillos (2007). Putting a Bridle on Irrationality : An Appraisal of Van Fraassen's New Epistemology. In Bradley John Monton (ed.), Images of Empiricism: Essays on Science and Stances, with a Reply From Bas C. Van Fraassen. Oxford University Press. 288-319.
Marc Alspector-Kelly (2006). Constructive Empiricism and Epistemic Modesty: Response to van Fraassen and Monton. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 64 (3):371-379.
Sara Vollmer (2000). Two Kinds of Observation: Why Van Fraassen Was Right to Make a Distinction, but Made the Wrong One. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):355-365.
Federica Russo (2006). Salmon and Van Fraassen on the Existence of Unobservable Entities: A Matter of Interpretation of Probability. [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 11 (3):221-247.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads107 ( #7,530 of 1,005,973 )
Recent downloads (6 months)48 ( #954 of 1,005,973 )
How can I increase my downloads?