Learning to Live with a Circle: Reflective Equilibrium and the Received View of the Scientific Realism Debate

Kosmas Brousalis, Stathis Psillos
{"title":"Learning to Live with a Circle: Reflective Equilibrium and the Received View of the Scientific Realism Debate","authors":"Kosmas Brousalis, Stathis Psillos","doi":"10.1007/s10516-023-09701-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Scientific Realism Debate (SRD) has been accused of going around in circles without reaching a consensus, so that several scholars have advocated its dissolution in favor of reformed projects that are eliminativist towards the distinctively philosophical aims and methods. In this paper, after outlining the project that SRD-participants have been involved in for some time now—which we call the Received View —we discuss two dissolution-proposals: sociological externalism and localism . We argue that these projects are incomplete and that, even when judged in themselves, they cannot flourish without the ‘traditional’ philosophical reflection they wish to get rid of. However, although not substitutes for the Received View, those projects have some insightful features. These are assigned their proper place in the dialectics of SRD, which is shown to be an instance of the method of reflective equilibrium (MRE). Lastly—based on Michael DePaul’s work—we provide a response to the well-known concern that MRE is epistemically circular, by claiming that MRE is the only rational method of inquiry. Overall, our goal is ‘therapeutic’: we try to mitigate the anxiety caused by simultaneously believing that SRD is circular and suspecting that there is a good way out of the circle that we just haven’t found yet. For, having dismissed the suspicion that there might be a good trick to dissolve the circle, one may learn to live in it and be more calm in carrying on with what one has.","PeriodicalId":316025,"journal":{"name":"Global Philosophy","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-023-09701-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The Scientific Realism Debate (SRD) has been accused of going around in circles without reaching a consensus, so that several scholars have advocated its dissolution in favor of reformed projects that are eliminativist towards the distinctively philosophical aims and methods. In this paper, after outlining the project that SRD-participants have been involved in for some time now—which we call the Received View —we discuss two dissolution-proposals: sociological externalism and localism . We argue that these projects are incomplete and that, even when judged in themselves, they cannot flourish without the ‘traditional’ philosophical reflection they wish to get rid of. However, although not substitutes for the Received View, those projects have some insightful features. These are assigned their proper place in the dialectics of SRD, which is shown to be an instance of the method of reflective equilibrium (MRE). Lastly—based on Michael DePaul’s work—we provide a response to the well-known concern that MRE is epistemically circular, by claiming that MRE is the only rational method of inquiry. Overall, our goal is ‘therapeutic’: we try to mitigate the anxiety caused by simultaneously believing that SRD is circular and suspecting that there is a good way out of the circle that we just haven’t found yet. For, having dismissed the suspicion that there might be a good trick to dissolve the circle, one may learn to live in it and be more calm in carrying on with what one has.
学会生活在一个循环中:反思性平衡与科学现实主义辩论的接受观点
科学实在论之争(SRD)一直被指责在原地打转,没有达成共识,因此一些学者主张解散它,转而支持对其独特的哲学目标和方法进行消除的改革项目。在本文中,在概述了srd参与者已经参与了一段时间的项目(我们称之为“接收视图”)之后,我们讨论了两种解散建议:社会学外部主义和地方主义。我们认为,这些项目是不完整的,即使从它们自己的角度来判断,如果没有它们希望摆脱的“传统”哲学反思,它们也无法蓬勃发展。然而,尽管不能替代Received View,这些项目有一些深刻的特性。这些都在SRD的辩证法中被赋予了适当的位置,这被证明是反思平衡方法(MRE)的一个实例。最后,基于Michael DePaul的工作,我们通过声称MRE是唯一合理的调查方法,对众所周知的MRE是认识论循环的担忧做出了回应。总的来说,我们的目标是“治疗性的”:我们试图减轻焦虑,同时相信SRD是循环的,并怀疑有一个我们还没有找到的好方法来摆脱这个循环。因为,在排除了可能有一个好方法来解除这个圈子的怀疑之后,一个人就可以学会在其中生活,并且更平静地继续他所拥有的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信