David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:381 - 392 (1990)
Van Fraassen has maintained that acceptance of a scientific theory does not involve the belief that the theory is true. Blackburn, Mitchell and Horwich have claimed that acceptance, as understood by van Fraassen, is the same as belief; in which case, van Fraassen's position is incoherent. Van Fraassen identifies belief with subjective probability, so the question at issue is really whether acceptance of a theory involves a high subjective probability for the theory. Van Fraassen is not committed to this, and hence the charge of incoherence is misplaced. Indeed, van Fraassen is correct on this point. However, he is wrong to think that acceptance requires a high subjective probability that the theory is empirically adequate; and his reason for thinking that science aims at empirical adequacy rather than truth rests on an overly crude theory of rational choice.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||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
Richard Dub (2015). Delusions, Acceptances, and Cognitive Feelings. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 91 (2):n/a-n/a.
Daniel J. McKaughan & Kevin C. Elliott (forthcoming). Cognitive Attitudes and Values in Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A.
Colin Howson (2007). Logic with Numbers. Synthese 156 (3):491-512.
Similar books and articles
Peter Lipton (2006). What Can Bas Believe? Musgrave and Van Fraassen on Observability. Analysis 66 (3):226 - 233.
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.
Mitchell S. Green & Christopher R. Hitchcock (1994). Reflections on Reflection: Van Fraassen on Belief. Synthese 98 (2):297 - 324.
Charles B. Cross (1991). Explanation and the Theory of Questions. Erkenntnis 34 (2):237 - 260.
Herman C. D. G. De Regt (2006). To Believe in Belief Popper and Van Fraassen on Scientific Realism. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 37 (1):21 - 39.
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.
Jonathan L. Kvanvig (1994). A Critique of Van Fraassen's Voluntaristic Epistemology. Synthese 98 (2):325-348.
Raimo Tuomela (2000). Belief Versus Acceptance. Philosophical Explorations 3 (2):122 – 137.
Sam Mitchell (1988). Constructive Empiricism and Anti-Realism. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:174 - 180.
Brendan P. Minogue (1984). Van Fraassen's Semanticism. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:115 - 121.
James Ladyman (2000). What's Really Wrong with Constructive Empiricism? Van Fraassen and the Metaphysics of Modality. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (4):837-856.
Bryson Brown (2004). The Pragmatics of Empirical Adequacy. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (2):242 – 264.
Warren Bourgeois (1987). On Rejecting Foss's Image of Van Fraassen. Philosophy of Science 54 (2):303-308.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads28 ( #109,469 of 1,725,404 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #268,739 of 1,725,404 )
How can I increase my downloads?