Epistemic justification supervenes on what is reflectively accessible, whereas epistemic externalism would be the denial of this

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Internalism holds that justification depends entirely on the individual's internal mental states</li><li class="ql-align-justify">This view asserts that external factors, such as the environment, are irrelevant to the justification of beliefs</li></ul>

Internalism and the Notion of Justification

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Externalism argues that beliefs are justified when there’s a connection between the belief and the truth</li><li class="ql-align-justify">It contends that external factors, such as causal relationships, are crucial for determining if a belief is true</li></ul>

Externalism's Focus on Truth and Justification

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Internalists believe individuals have direct access to what justifies their beliefs</li><li class="ql-align-justify">This view prioritizes the internal, mental accessibility of reasons over external environmental factors</li></ul>

Special Access to Justification

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Semantic externalism undermines certain forms of internalism by questioning the idea of special access to one's thought content</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Externalism suggests that factors outside of one's mental states can determine the content of thought and justification</li></ul>

Externalism's Challenge to Internalism

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">A key debate centers on whether justification supervenes solely on internal mental states (internalism) or also on external factors (externalism)</li><li class="ql-align-justify">This impacts how philosophers understand the relationship between belief, knowledge, and truth</li></ul>

Supervenience and Epistemic Justification

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Epistemic internalists often grapple with skepticism, especially regarding whether knowledge truly reflects reality</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Externalists argue their framework better addresses skepticism by grounding justification in reliable processes tied to truth</li></ul>

Role of Epistemic Internalism in Skepticism

Sanford C. Goldberg’s Internalism and Externalism in Semantics and Epistemology explores the debate between internalism, which argues that justification depends on internal mental states, and externalism, which emphasizes external factors like truth and causality. The book is important for addressing how these theories impact knowledge, skepticism, and our understanding of justification.

To what extent are meaning, on the one hand, and knowledge, on the other, determined by aspects of the 'outside world'? Internalism and Externalism in Semantics and Epistemology presents twelve specially written essays exploring these debates in metaphysics and epistemology and the connections between them. In so doing, it examines how issues connected with the nature of mind and language bear on issues about the nature of knowledge and justification (and vice versa). Topics discussed include the compatibility of semantic externalism and epistemic internalism, the variety of internalist and externalist positions (both semantic and epistemic), semantic externalism's implications for the epistemology of reasoning and reflection, and the possibility of arguments from the theory of mental content to the theory of epistemic justification (and vice versa).

philosophy

Philosophy

Discover the world of business and economics.

economics

Economics

books

Books

meditation

Meditation

scienceandnature

Science & Nature

Sanford C. Goldberg

Internalism and Externalism in Semantics and Epistemology

To understand an age or a nation, we must understand its philosophy, and to understand its philosophy we must ourselves be in some degree philosophers

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">The theory of knowledge has become central to philosophy since Descartes</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Russell highlights the influence of subjectivism, derived from modern epistemological concerns</li></ul>

Epistemology as Philosophy’s Core Inquiry

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Hume argued that no beliefs are rationally grounded; they rest on habit</li><li class="ql-align-justify">This skepticism challenges the basis of empiricism, leading to subsequent philosophical shifts</li></ul>

Skepticism: Hume's Radical Impact

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Analytical empiricism combines mathematics and logic to bring clarity to philosophical questions</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Russell believes that applying scientific rigor to epistemology can resolve longstanding philosophical problems</li></ul>

The Role of Logic in Modern Epistemology

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">While empirical methods excel in science, they struggle to address questions of value and existence</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Russell acknowledges that certain philosophical issues lie beyond the reach of empirical investigation</li></ul>

Limits of Empirical Knowledge

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Philosophy navigates between theology's dogmatism and science's precision, exploring unanswered questions</li><li class="ql-align-justify">It seeks to understand the deeper aspects of existence that neither science nor theology can fully explain</li></ul>

Philosophy’s Relationship with Science and Theology

<ul><li>Modern epistemology encourages humility before the unknown, guarding against overconfidence</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Russell stresses the importance of recognizing the limits of human knowledge and resisting cosmic arrogance</li></ul>

Epistemological Humility Against Cosmic Impiety

Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy emphasizes the central role of epistemology in modern philosophy, exploring the evolution of knowledge theories. It highlights skepticism's impact, the integration of logic in clarifying philosophical questions, and the limits of empirical methods. The book underscores philosophy's unique position between science and theology.

First published in 1946, History of Western Philosophy went on to become the best-selling philosophy book of the twentieth century. A dazzlingly ambitious project, it remains unchallenged to this day as the ultimate introduction to Western philosophy. Providing a sophisticated overview of the ideas that have perplexed people from time immemorial, it is 'long on wit, intelligence and curmudgeonly scepticism', as the New York Times noted, and it is this, coupled with the sheer brilliance of its scholarship, that has made Russell's History of Western Philosophy one of the most important philosophical works of all time.

religionandspirituality

Religion & Spirituality

history

History

Bertrand Russell

History of Western Philosophy

Falsehood of fundamental laws is a consequence of their greatexplanatory power

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Cartwright argues that fundamental laws in physics describe idealized models, not actual reality</li><li class="ql-align-justify">These laws offer powerful explanations but often fail to account for real-world phenomena accurately</li></ul>

Limits of Fundamental Laws in Describing Reality

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Phenomenological laws describe observable phenomena, while theoretical laws address underlying explanations</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Cartwright emphasizes the limitations of theoretical laws, advocating for the practical utility of phenomenological laws</li></ul>

Phenomenological vs. Theoretical Laws in Science

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Cartwright proposes that scientific explanation involves constructing models that approximate reality</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Models use theoretical laws for prediction, but these laws are true only within the context of the model, not reality</li></ul>

Simulacrum Account: Explanation Through Models

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Causal explanations provide concrete connections between causes and effects, unlike abstract theoretical laws</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Cartwright argues that causal principles are essential for understanding and intervening in nature</li></ul>

Causal Laws and Effective Strategies in Science

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">A law's ability to explain phenomena does not imply it is true; it may still be idealized</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Cartwright challenges the "inference to the best explanation" approach, suggesting that causal reasoning is more reliable</li></ul>

Explanatory Power Does Not Guarantee Truth

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">While Cartwright is skeptical of the truth of theoretical laws, she accepts the reality of well-supported theoretical entities</li><li class="ql-align-justify">This "entity realism" acknowledges the practical existence of entities inferred from causal relationships</li></ul>

Entity Realism: Belief in Theoretical Entities Without Law Realism

Nancy Cartwright's How the Laws of Physics Lie argues that fundamental laws in physics describe idealized models rather than reality. She emphasizes the importance of phenomenological laws and causal explanations for practical knowledge. The book challenges traditional views of scientific explanation, highlighting the limitations of theoretical laws

In this sequence of philosophical essays about natural science, Nancy Cartwright argues that fundamental explanatory laws, the deepest and most admired successes of modern physics, do not in fact describe the regularities that exist in nature. Yet she is not `anti-realist'. Rather, she draws a novel distinction, arguing that theoretical entities, and the complex and localized laws that describe them, can be interpreted realistically, but that the simple unifying laws of basic theory cannot.

Nancy Cartwright

How the Laws of Physics Lie

All instruction given or received by way of argument proceeds from pre-existent knowledge

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Aristotle argues that all instruction and knowledge come from pre-existing knowledge</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Learning is a process of drawing conclusions from what is already known, whether through induction or deduction</li></ul>

Knowledge is Built on Pre-Existing Knowledge

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">True scientific knowledge is derived from demonstrations that show the cause of the facts</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Knowledge is complete when the cause of a fact is known, and the fact could not be otherwise</li></ul>

Scientific Knowledge Comes from Demonstration

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Aristotle emphasizes the need for first principles, which are indemonstrable and serve as the foundation for further knowledge	 </li><li class="ql-align-justify">Without these primary premises, knowledge would fall into infinite regress</li></ul>

First Principles: The Foundation of Knowledge

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Demonstrative knowledge comes from syllogisms, where conclusions are derived from true and necessary premises</li><li class="ql-align-justify">This logical structure ensures that knowledge is built on firm foundations</li></ul>

Role of Syllogism in Acquiring Knowledge

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Inductive reasoning starts from specific observations and leads to general principles</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Deductive reasoning, or syllogism, starts from these general principles to explain specific facts</li></ul>

Induction and Deduction: Two Paths to Knowledge

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Knowledge of universals is crucial because it helps understand particulars</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Universals are grasped through induction, while particulars are understood in their relation to these general truths</li></ul>

Universals and Particulars in Scientific Knowledge

Aristotle's Posterior Analytics explores how knowledge is acquired through demonstration, built on pre-existing knowledge, and grounded in first principles. It emphasizes the role of syllogism in scientific reasoning and the distinction between induction and deduction. This work is foundational for understanding the structure and process of obtaining true knowledge

Posterior Analytics. Aristotle. The Posterior Analytics is a text from Aristotle's Organon that deals with demonstration, definition, and scientific knowledge. The demonstration is distinguished as a syllogism productive of scientific knowledge, while the definition marked as the statement of a thing's nature, ... a statement of the meaning of the name, or of an equivalent nominal formula. In the Prior Analytics, syllogistic logic is considered in its formal aspect; in the Posterior it is considered in respect of its matter. The "form" of a syllogism lies in the necessary connection between the premises and the conclusion. Even where there is no fault in the form, there may be in the matter, i.e. the propositions of which it is composed, which may be true or false, probable or improbable.

strategy

Strategy

education

Learning & Education

Aristotle

Posterior Analytics

For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Aristotle argues that moral virtue is not innate but developed through habituation</li><li class="ql-align-justify">We gain moral knowledge by practicing virtuous actions, not simply by understanding them theoretically</li></ul>

Moral Knowledge Comes from Experience, Not Nature

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Practical wisdom (phronesis) is crucial for applying moral knowledge in everyday life</li><li class="ql-align-justify">It involves not only knowing what is good but also how to achieve it in specific situations</li></ul>

Practical Wisdom: Knowing How to Act

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Deliberation is key to moral decision-making; it allows us to weigh options and foresee outcomes</li><li class="ql-align-justify">We deliberate about means, not ends, focusing on how to achieve virtuous goals</li></ul>

Role of Deliberation in Moral Knowledge

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Virtue is a balance between extremes, such as courage being the mean between recklessness and cowardice</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Knowing the virtuous path requires understanding this balance and applying it in context</li></ul>

Knowledge of Virtue Requires Understanding the Mean

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Intellectual virtues like wisdom help guide moral virtues by providing the framework for right action</li><li class="ql-align-justify">While moral virtue comes from habit, intellectual virtue arises from teaching and reflection</li></ul>

Intellectual Virtue Complements Moral Virtue

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">For Aristotle, rationality distinguishes humans and enables the practice of virtue</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Through reason, we can align our desires with virtuous goals, turning knowledge into action</li></ul>

Reason as the Foundation of Virtue

Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics explores how moral knowledge is acquired through experience and habitual practice. It emphasizes practical wisdom (phronesis) as essential for applying ethical principles in real-life situations. The work is important for highlighting the role of reason and deliberation in achieving virtue and making sound moral decisions.

Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" is considered to be one of the most important treatises on ethics ever written. In an incredibly detailed study of virtue and vice in man, Aristotle examines one of the most central themes to man, the nature of goodness itself. In Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics," he asserts that virtue is essential to happiness and that man must live in accordance with the "doctrine of the mean" (the balance between excess and deficiency) to achieve such happiness.

motivationandinspiration

Motivation & Inspiration

Nicomachean Ethics

All men by nature desire to know

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Knowledge starts with sense perception, which provides the foundation for memory and experience</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Experience allows individuals to move from knowing particulars to grasping universal concepts, leading to scientific knowledge</li></ul>

Knowledge Begins with Perception

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Knowledge involves grasping first principles, fundamental truths that do not require further proof</li><li class="ql-align-justify">These principles serve as the foundation from which we can deduce further knowlede</li></ul>

First Principles: The Core of Understanding

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Episteme (scientific knowledge) must be distinguished from doxa (opinion)</li><li class="ql-align-justify">True knowledge requires understanding causes</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Opinions may be widely held but lack the necessary justification to be considered knowledge</li></ul>

Episteme vs. Doxa: Knowledge vs. Opinion

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Perception begins the process of knowing</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Reason allows individuals to abstract universal principles from specific instances</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Rational thought helps organize and systematize the knowledge gained through sensory experiences</li></ul>

Role of Reason in Acquiring Knowledge

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Knowledge involves both potentiality (the capacity to know) and actuality (the state of knowing).</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Learning is the process of turning potential knowledge into actual understanding</li></ul>

Potentiality and Actuality in Knowledge

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Aristotle’s theory of knowledge is deeply connected to his metaphysical concept of being</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Understanding what something is requires understanding its purpose and cause</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Knowing the essence of a thing is key to scientific understanding</li></ul>

Interconnectedness of Being and Knowing

Aristotle's Metaphysics explores the nature of knowledge, emphasizing that it begins with sense perception and progresses to universal truths through reason. It distinguishes between true knowledge (episteme) and opinion (doxa), highlighting the importance of understanding first principles. The work is foundational for understanding how we acquire and organize knowledge.

Aristotle's Metaphysics

Truth emerges more readily from error than from confusion

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Science progresses not linearly but through paradigm shifts, where prevailing frameworks are replaced</li><li class="ql-align-justify">These shifts occur when anomalies challenge the existing scientific consensus, leading to a revolution</li></ul>

Paradigm Shifts: The Engines of Scientific Progress

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Normal science involves solving puzzles within the current paradigm, without questioning the framework</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Scientists refine existing knowledge and solve problems the paradigm defines as legitimate</li></ul>

Normal Science: Puzzle-Solving within a Paradigm

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">A scientific crisis emerges when anomalies accumulate and resist resolution under the current paradigm</li><li class="ql-align-justify">This crisis prompts radical changes, eventually leading to a paradigm shift</li></ul>

Crisis in Science: A Prelude to Revolution

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Competing paradigms are incommensurable, meaning they involve fundamentally different assumptions</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Transitioning between paradigms requires a redefinition of concepts and methods, which makes direct comparison impossible</li></ul>

Incommensurability: Old and New Paradigms Are Not Directly Comparable

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Scientific revolutions are not just theoretical shifts but transformations in how scientists perceive the world</li><li class="ql-align-justify">These changes influence the entire scientific community’s worldview and the types of questions they explore</li></ul>

Scientific Revolutions as Worldview Transformations

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Scientific revolutions are necessary for long-term progress, even if they disrupt stability</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Progress is not a gradual accumulation of knowledge but occurs in bursts during these revolutionary periods</li></ul>

Progress Through Revolutions: Science Evolves in Stages

Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions argues that scientific progress occurs through paradigm shifts rather than gradual accumulation. These shifts happen when anomalies challenge the prevailing scientific framework, leading to a crisis and revolution. The book is crucial for understanding the dynamic, non-linear nature of scientific advancement.

“One of the most influential books of the 20th century,” the landmark study in the history of science with a new introduction by philosopher Ian Hacking (Guardian, UK). First published in 1962, Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions ”reshaped our understanding of the scientific enterprise and human inquiry in general.” In it, he challenged long-standing assumptions about scientific progress, arguing that transformative ideas don’t arise from the gradual process of experimentation and data accumulation, but instead occur outside of “normal science.” Though Kuhn was writing when physics ruled the sciences, his ideas on how scientific revolutions bring order to the anomalies that amass over time in research experiments are still instructive in today’s biotech age (Science). This new edition of Kuhn’s essential work includes an insightful introduction by Ian Hacking, which clarifies terms popularized by Kuhn, including “paradigm” and “incommensurability,” and applies Kuhn’s ideas to the science of today. Usefully keyed to the separate sections of the book, Hacking’s introduction provides important background information as well as a contemporary context. This newly designed edition also includes an expanded and updated index.

artificialintelligence

Artificial Intelligence

Thomas S. Kuhn

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

A science that insists on possessing the only correct method and the only acceptable results is ideology

Theoretical anarchism in science encourages creativity and progress<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Boldly exploring different methods can lead to innovation</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Traditional scientific practices can limit growth</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Unconventional ideas can challenge existing theories</li></ul>

Anarchism in Science: A Tool for Progress

When it comes to scientific discovery, there is no one perfect method, and often unconventional methods lead to groundbreaking breakthroughs<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Scientific progress cannot be restricted to a single method</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Every scientific approach has the potential to lead to success</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Thinking outside the box can lead to significant discoveries</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Rules are meant to be broken in the pursuit of knowledge</li></ul>

"Anything Goes" in Scientific Discovery

Science progresses by embracing diversity of ideas, not by following a rigid framework<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Proliferation of theories enhances critical thought and prevents stagnation</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Plurality of theories promotes an inclusive and innovative scientific community</li><li class="ql-align-justify">More theories bring broader understanding and evaluation of complex topics</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Resistance to uniformity can lead to groundbreaking discoveries that challenge conventional thinking</li></ul>

The Flaws of Uniformity in Science

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Science may advance by adopting hypotheses that contradict well-established theories</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Counterinductive thinking can help reveal new insights that would be missed with conventional logic</li></ul>

The Role of Counterinduction in Scientific Growth

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Science is influenced by social, historical, and personal factors, making it a non-uniform process</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Scientific "facts" are often shaped by ideologies and cannot be separated from their contet</li></ul>

Science as a Social Process: No Objective Standards

<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Feyerabend advocates for a pluralistic approach, where many different methods and ideas coexist</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Rigid adherence to one scientific approach stifles creativity and prevents genuine progress</li></ul>

The Need for Pluralism in Scientific Inquiry

Paul Feyerabend’s Against Method challenges the notion of a single, rigid scientific method, advocating for methodological pluralism and theoretical anarchism. He argues that science advances by breaking rules and embracing diverse approaches. The book is important for highlighting the influence of social, historical, and personal factors in scientific discovery.

Modern philosophy of science has paid great attention to the understanding of scientific 'practice', in contrast to concentration on scientific 'method'. Paul Feyerabend's acclaimed work, which has contributed greatly to this new emphasis, shows the deficiencies of some widespread ideas about the nature of knowledge. He argues that the only feasible explanations of scientific successes are historical explanations, and that anarchism must now replace rationalism in the theory of knowledge. The third edition of this classic text contains a new preface and additional reflections at various points in which the author takes account both of recent debates on science and on the impact of scientific products and practices on the human community. While disavowing populism or relativism, Feyerabend continues to insist that the voice of the inexpert must be heard. Thus many environmental perils were first identified by non-experts against prevailing assumptions in the scientific community. Feyerabend's challenging reassessment of scientific claims and understandings are as pungent and timely as ever.

creativity

Creativity

Paul Feyerabend

Against Method

In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality

The core of science is the ability to test and potentially disprove theories:Scientific theories must be falsifiableA theory that cannot be falsified is not scientificEmpirical testing is essential to scientific inquiry

Falsifiability: The Heart of Scientific Inquiry

Inductive reasoning is inherently flawed:<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Inductive reasoning makes broad conclusions based on specific observations</li><li class="ql-align-justify">This it is not a reliable method of gaining knowledge.</li></ul>Deduction is the main driver of scientific progress<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Scientists do not rely on induction</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Instead scientists make advances by testing daring hypotheses through deductive reasoning</li></ul>

The Problem of Induction in Science

The scientific method is a way of learning through predicting and testing hypotheses against observations:<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Science advances by predicting from hypotheses</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Testing against observations shows accuracy</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Failed predictions revise hypotheses, leading to progress</li></ul>

Deductive Testing: The Scientific Method in Action

The demarcation problem distinguishes scientific theories from metaphysical ones based on testability:<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Science must engage with empirical tests</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Metaphysical theories lack empirical verifiability</li></ul>

Distinguishing Science from Metaphysics

The journey of a scientist is guided by practicalities, not aesthetics:<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Simpler theories are not favored for their beauty</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Theories are favored if they are easier to test and prove wrong</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Simplicity is linked to a theory's ability to be falsified</li><li class="ql-align-justify">The fewer assumptions, the easier the theory is to falsify</li></ul>

Simplicity in Science: Not Aesthetic, But Practical

The concept of probability is used in science to describe the likelihood of events, but many caveats apply:<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Probabilities are not guarantees, but rather estimates based on available evidence</li><li class="ql-align-justify">A low probability estimate cannot be used to prove or disprove a theory on their own</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Testing against empirical data is necessary to validate the utility of probabilities</li></ul>

Probability and Its Limits in Science

Popper's masterpiece in epistemology is a must-read for all researchers and scientists as well as anyone interested in understanding how both research and science are being conducted thus shaping our present and future

Described by the philosopher A.J. Ayer as a work of 'great originality and power', this book revolutionized contemporary thinking on science and knowledge. Ideas such as the now legendary doctrine of 'falsificationism' electrified the scientific community, influencing even working scientists, as well as post-war philosophy. This astonishing work ranks alongside The Open Society and Its Enemies as one of Popper's most enduring books and contains insights and arguments that demand to be read to this day.

Internalism and Externalism in Semantics and Epistemology

History of Western Philosophy

How the Laws of Physics Lie

Posterior Analytics

Nicomachean Ethics

Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai