David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 63 (3):106 (1996)
Critics of Laudan's normative naturalism have questioned whether methodological rules can be regarded as empirical hypotheses about relations between means and ends. Drawing on Laudan's defense that rules of method are contingent on assumptions about the world, I argue that even if such rules can be shown to be analytic in principle (Kaiser 1991), in practice the warrant for such rules will be empirical. Laudan's naturalism, however, acquires normative force only by construing both methods and epistemic goals as instrumental to practical concerns, and issues only in context-specific and not general methodological principles
|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
Kristin Shrader-Frechette (2007). Relative Risk and Methodological Rules for Causal Inferences. Biological Theory 2 (4):332-336.
Arthur M. Diamond (2009). Fixing Ideas: How Research is Constrained by Mandated Formalism. Journal of Economic Methodology 16 (2):191-206.
Similar books and articles
David B. Resnik (1993). Do Scientific Aims Justify Methodological Rules? Erkenntnis 38 (2):223 - 232.
David B. Resnik (1992). Are Methodological Rules Hypothetical Imperatives? Philosophy of Science 59 (3):498-507.
Larry Laudan (1986). Methodology's Prospects. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:347 - 354.
Alexander Rosenberg (1990). Normative Naturalism and the Role of Philosophy. Philosophy of Science 57 (1):34-43.
Matthias Kaiser (1991). Progress and Rationality: Laudan's Attempt to Divorce a Happy Couple. Inquiry 34 (4):433-455.
Dan McArthur (2005). Normative Naturalism and the Relativised a Priori. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 36 (2):331 - 350.
Jonathan Knowles (2002). What's Really Wrong with Laudan's Normative Naturalism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16 (2):171 – 186.
Gerald Doppelt (1990). The Naturalist Conception of Methodological Standards in Science: A Critique. Philosophy of Science 57 (1):1-19.
Dimitri Ginev (1999). On the Hermeneutic Alternative to Normative Naturalism. Theoria 14 (2):291-301.
Herbert Keuth (1978). Methodologische Regeln Des Kritischen Rationalismus. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 9 (2):236-255.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #226,513 of 1,101,088 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #59,135 of 1,101,088 )
How can I increase my downloads?