David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
The main claim of this paper is that the boundary between scientific and non scientific knowledge does exist -- which means several things. First, it's not the case that anything goes: some irrationalists have been mistaken into acceptance of that wrong conclusion because they have remarked that, however the boundary might be drawn, some important scientific developments would fall afoul of the standards entitling a research practice to count as scientific. Second, the boundary is not an imaginary one, that is to say besides what is scientific and what is unscientific there also is what lies at the boundary, certain research practices which are neither wholly scientific nor fully unscientific. Third, studying what is science is itself a kind of research belonging to the boundary, since the methods available in that research are not as strictly rigorous as those used in science proper; in fact, all of philosophy is included in the boundary in question. Fourth, the boundary (and in fact science itself) displays a characteristic structure pertaining to what are by now usually called «non wellfounded sets» -- sets, that is, which are somehow or other involved in themselves, whether as members, or as members of members or so on; the significance of the last thesis is that the best way of approaching philosophy of science is not standard set theory, but theories allowing non wellfounded sets are preferable. Fifth, and last, admission of the boundary's existence compels us to go beyond standard classical logic and to look for a more suitable logic, as for instance some kind of fuzzy paraconsistent logic.
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jeremy T. Law (2010). Toward a Theology of Boundary. Zygon 45 (3):739-761.
Michael Lynch & Ruth McNally, "Science", "Sens Commun" Et Preuve ADN: Une Controverse Judiciaire a Propos de la Comprehension Publique de la Science ["Science" "Common Sense", and DNA Evidence: A Legal Controversy About the Public Understanding of Science]:A Legal Controversy About the Public Understanding of Science.
Guichun Guo (2010). The Boundaries of Context and Their Significance. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 5 (3):449-460.
Charles Tilly (2004). Social Boundary Mechanisms. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34 (2):211-236.
Margaret Morrison (2006). Applying Science and Applied Science: What's the Difference? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20 (1):81 – 91.
Mathieu Albert, Suzanne Laberge & Brian Hodges (2009). Boundary-Work in the Health Research Field: Biomedical and Clinician Scientists' Perceptions of Social Science Research. [REVIEW] Minerva 47 (2):171-194.
Jeffrey Satinover (2006). Quantum Theory and the Boundary Between Science and Spirit: Some Remarks From a Friend of Kabbalah. World Futures 62 (4):300 – 308.
Achille C. Varzi (1997). Boundaries, Continuity, and Contact. Noûs 31 (1):26-58.
Patrick L. Bourgeois (2002). Philosophy at the Boundary of Reason. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 76:1-21.
Achille C. Varzi, Boundary. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Added to index2009-03-06
Total downloads3 ( #334,532 of 1,410,540 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?