Why Should the Science of Nature be Empirical?: L. Jonathan Cohen


Abstract
In the past empiricist philosophy has urged one or other or both of two interconnected, and sometimes interconfused, theses. The first has been a thesis about the causal origins of certain beliefs, the second a thesis about the proper criteria for appraising these beliefs. The causal thesis is that all beliefs about the structure and contents of the natural world are the end-product of a process that originates wholly in individual experiences of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, or touching. The criterial thesis is that all these beliefs are ultimately to be appraised for their truth, soundness or acceptability in terms of the data afforded by such perceptual acts. Of recent years the causal version of empiricism has been much attacked, primarily in regard to its implications about language-learning. The language in terms of which our beliefs are constructed is heavily conditioned, we are told, by certain congenital features of the human brain. But, whenever Chomsky and his followers have assailed the causal version of empiricism, they have always been careful to claim for their doctrines the warrant of empirical evidence. They have never questioned the correctness of the criterial version of empiricism.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S1358246100001065
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 43,728
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Why Should the Science of Nature Be Empirical?L. Jonathan Cohen - 1975 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Lectures 9:168-183.
Rational Versus Anti-Rational Interpretations of Science: An Ape-Language Case-Study.Robert P. Farrell - 2006 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 37 (1):83-100.
Perceptual Justification and Warrant by Default.Chris Tucker - 2009 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87: 445-63 87 (3):445-63.
Reasons and Psychological Causes.Wayne A. Davis - 2005 - Philosophical Studies 122 (1):51 - 101.
Causal Cognition and Causal Realism.Riccardo Viale - 1999 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 13 (2):151 – 167.
Three Varieties of Knowledge.Donald Davidson - 1991 - In A. Phillips Griffiths (ed.), Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 153-166.
Foundationalism and the External World.Laurence BonJour - 1999 - Philosophical Perspectives 13 (s13):229-249.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-02-21

Total views
14 ( #580,247 of 2,264,684 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #293,275 of 2,264,684 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature