David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
The Quarterly Review of Biology 83 (1):29-36 (2008)
According to one traditional view, empirical science is necessarily preceded by philosophical analysis. Yet the relevance of philosophy is often doubted by those engaged in empirical sciences. I argue that these doubts can be substantiated by two theoretical problems that the traditional conception of philosophy is bound to face. First, there is a strong normative etiology to philosophical problems, theories, and notions that is difficult to reconcile with descriptive empirical study. Second, conceptual analysis (a role that is typically assigned to philosophy) seems to lose its object of study if it is granted that terms do not have purely conceptual meanings detached from their actual use in empirical sciences. These problems are particularly acute to the current naturalistic philosophy of science. I suggest a more concrete integration of philosophy and the sciences as a possible way of making philosophy of science have more impact.
|Keywords||conceptual analysis fallibilism metaphilosophy naturalism normativity semantics theories of reference|
|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
Nicholas Binney (2015). Nosology, Ontology and Promiscuous Realism. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 21 (3):391-397.
Hyemin Han (2014). Analysing Theoretical Frameworks of Moral Education Through Lakatos’s Philosophy of Science. Journal of Moral Education 43 (1):32-53.
Similar books and articles
Brian Leiter, Naturalism in Legal Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Justin Sytsma (2010). The Proper Province of Philosophy. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (3):427-445.
Michael V. Antony (2006). How to Argue Against (Some) Theories of Content. Iyyun 55 (July):265-286.
William Ramsey (1992). Prototypes and Conceptual Analysis. Topoi 11 (1):59-70.
Per Sandin (2006). Has Psychology Debunked Conceptual Analysis? Metaphilosophy 37 (1):26–33.
L. A. Whitt (1988). Conceptual Dimensions of Theory Appraisal. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 19 (4):517-529.
Vadim V. Vasilyev (2013). Philosophy of Mind, Past and Present. Metaphilosophy 44 (1-2):15-18.
Dimitri Ginev (2005). Against the Politics of Postmodern Philosophy of Science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 19 (2):191 – 208.
Mark Colyvan (2009). Naturalising Normativity. In David Braddon-Mitchell & Robert Nola (eds.), Conceptual Analysis and Philosophical Naturalism. MIT Press
Alexander Rosenberg (1990). Normative Naturalism and the Role of Philosophy. Philosophy of Science 57 (1):34-43.
James Genone & Tania Lombrozo (2012). Concept Possession, Experimental Semantics, and Hybrid Theories of Reference. Philosophical Psychology 25 (5):1-26.
C. U. Moulines (2010). Metatheoretical Structuralism: A General Program for Analyzing Science. [REVIEW] Axiomathes 20 (2-3):255-268.
Paul Thagard (2009). Why Cognitive Science Needs Philosophy and Vice Versa. Topics in Cognitive Science 1 (2):237-254.
Stephen P. Stich & Jonathan M. Weinberg (2001). Jackson's Empirical Assumptions. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62 (3):637-643.
Added to index2012-01-27
Total downloads24 ( #160,556 of 1,907,654 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #340,539 of 1,907,654 )
How can I increase my downloads?