David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 35 (1):91-127 (2004)
The term ``neurophilosophy'' is often used either implicitly or explicitly for characterizing the investigation of philosophical theories in relation to neuroscientific hypotheses. The exact methodological principles and systematic rules for a linkage between philosophical theories and neuroscientific hypothesis, however, remain to be clarified. The present contribution focuses on these principles, as well as on the relation between ontology and epistemology and the characterization of hypothesis in neurophilosophy. Principles of transdisciplinary methodology include the `principle of asymmetry', the `principle of bi-directionality' and the `principle of transdisciplinary circularity'. The `principle of asymmetry' points to an asymmetric relationship between logical and natural conditions. The `principle of bi-directionality' claims for the necessity of bi-directional linkage between natural and logical conditions. The `principle of transdisciplinary circularity' describes systematic rules for mutual comparison and cross-conditional exchange between philosophical theory and neuroscientific hypotheses. The relation between ontology and epistemology no longer is determined by ontological presuppositions i.e. ``ontological primacy''. Instead, there is correspondence between different `epistemological capacities' and different kinds of ontology which consecutively results in ``epistemic primacy'' and ``ontological pluralism''. The present contribution concludes by rejecting some so-called `standard-arguments' including the `argument of circularity', the `argument of categorical fallacy', the `argument of validity' and the `argument of necessity'.
|Keywords||epistemology neurophilosophy neurophilosophical hypothesis ontology principles standard-arguments|
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jérôme Dokic & Paul Égré (2009). Margin for Error and the Transparency of Knowledge. Synthese 166 (1):1 - 20.
C. E. Cleland (2011). Prediction and Explanation in Historical Natural Science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62 (3):551-582.
Warren Schmaus (1996). The Empirical Character of Methodological Rules. Philosophy of Science 63 (3):106.
Gerhard Zecha (1992). Value-Neutrality and Criticism. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 23 (1):153-164.
Claus Beisbart & Tobias Jung (2006). Privileged, Typical, or Not Even That? – Our Place in the World According to the Copernican and the Cosmological Principles. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 37 (2):225 - 256.
Michael J. Shaffer (2008). Re-Formulating the Correspondence Principle: Problems and Prospects. Polish Journal of Philosophy 2 (1):99-115.
Stewart Cohen (1998). Two Kinds of Skeptical Argument. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58 (1):143 - 159.
Stewart Cohen (1998). Two Kinds of Skeptical Argument. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58 (1):143-159.
Giovanni Camardi (1999). Charles Lyell and the Uniformity Principle. Biology and Philosophy 14 (4):537-560.
Stephan Hartmann (2008). Modeling High-Temperature Superconductors: Correspondence at Bay? In Lena Soler (ed.), Rethinking Scientific Change. Stabilities, Ruptures, Incommensurabilities? Springer 107--128.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads67 ( #63,990 of 1,907,606 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #196,519 of 1,907,606 )
How can I increase my downloads?