实用主义与社会建构：对 Shahryari 的答复

IF 1.2 2区哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Journal for General Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2023-12-07 DOI:10.1007/s10838-023-09668-z

David J. Stump

{"title":"实用主义与社会建构：对 Shahryari 的答复","authors":"David J. Stump","doi":"10.1007/s10838-023-09668-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In a response to my recent article in this journal, Shahram Shahryari argues that I fail to present a third position between absolutism and relativism. He makes two points: first, that fallibilism is insufficient as an alternative, because it is compatible with both relativism and absolutism. The second point is that my argument that experience can lead to objective judgment without being a new absolute fails. I discuss these in turn, showing that both critiques fail and that pragmatism is a genuine alternative between absolutism and relativism.</p>","PeriodicalId":44953,"journal":{"name":"Journal for General Philosophy of Science","volume":"108 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pragmatism Versus Social Construction: A Reply to Shahryari\",\"authors\":\"David J. Stump\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10838-023-09668-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In a response to my recent article in this journal, Shahram Shahryari argues that I fail to present a third position between absolutism and relativism. He makes two points: first, that fallibilism is insufficient as an alternative, because it is compatible with both relativism and absolutism. The second point is that my argument that experience can lead to objective judgment without being a new absolute fails. I discuss these in turn, showing that both critiques fail and that pragmatism is a genuine alternative between absolutism and relativism.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44953,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for General Philosophy of Science\",\"volume\":\"108 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for General Philosophy of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-023-09668-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for General Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-023-09668-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

Shahram Shahryari 在回应我最近在本刊发表的文章时，认为我没有在绝对主义和相对主义之间提出第三种立场。他提出了两个观点：第一，作为一种选择，谬误论是不充分的，因为它与相对主义和绝对主义都是兼容的。第二点是，我关于经验可以导致客观判断而不成为新的绝对的论点是失败的。我将依次讨论这些论点，说明这两种批评都是失败的，实用主义是绝对主义和相对主义之间的真正选择。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Pragmatism Versus Social Construction: A Reply to Shahryari

In a response to my recent article in this journal, Shahram Shahryari argues that I fail to present a third position between absolutism and relativism. He makes two points: first, that fallibilism is insufficient as an alternative, because it is compatible with both relativism and absolutism. The second point is that my argument that experience can lead to objective judgment without being a new absolute fails. I discuss these in turn, showing that both critiques fail and that pragmatism is a genuine alternative between absolutism and relativism.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal for General Philosophy of Science HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-

CiteScore

2.10

自引率

10.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal for General Philosophy of Science is a forum for the discussion of a variety of attitudes concerning the philosophy of science. It has as its subject matter the philosophical, especially methodological, ontological, epistemological, anthropological, and ethical foundations of the individual sciences. Particular emphasis is laid on bringing both the natural, the cultural, and the technical sciences into a philosophical context, within which the historical presuppositions and conditions of the current problems of the philosophy of science are also included in the discussion. The Journal for General Philosophy of Science has been successful in its attempt to serve as a forum that bridges the gap between the different sciences, especially the natural, cultural, and social sciences. One of its purposes is to discuss and contrast the common as well as the different specific methodological and philosophical foundations of the individual sciences, taking into account all currently relevant positions of the philosophy of science. In recent years considerable insight has been gained into the problems of current philosophy of science by considering the historical dimension of the sciences. This is why more intensive efforts will be made in the future towards the integration of historical and systematic considerations. The journal contains:articles discussions reports on the state of the philosophy of science in individual countries reviews a bibliography of the major journals in the field of the history and philosophy of science. The journal is of interest to philosophers, especially philosophers of science, as well as to scholars from the field of the natural, cultural, social and technical sciences who are interested in becoming aware of the philosophical implications of their disciplines and in being stimulated by the transfer of methods, leading ideas, concepts and theories from other fields. As of 2015, Journal for General Philosophy of Science will accept submissions online via the Editorial Manager system. Authors are encouraged to use this format in submitting to the journal to ensure that your article is processed in a timely fashion.