科学未触及的哲学?芝诺的转轮、塞克斯图斯的纪元ē等

IF 0.6 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Josef Mattes
{"title":"科学未触及的哲学?芝诺的转轮、塞克斯图斯的纪元ē等","authors":"Josef Mattes","doi":"10.3390/philosophies9040115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The relationship between science and philosophy is contentious. Quine saw philosophy as continuous with science (broadly understood), but many philosophers see a dichotomy between them. The present paper discusses cases where the relevance of certain scientific findings has been denied (related to Zeno’s Dichotomy paradox and to the appeal of skeptical arguments) or overlooked (one argument related to the frame problem of artificial intelligence and Nagel’s “bat” argument). The results caution against overly quick dismissal of the import of science on philosophical questions, whether the latter be of a more theoretical or practical nature.","PeriodicalId":31446,"journal":{"name":"Philosophies","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Philosophy Untouched by Science? Zeno’s Runner, Sextus’ Epochē, and More\",\"authors\":\"Josef Mattes\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/philosophies9040115\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The relationship between science and philosophy is contentious. Quine saw philosophy as continuous with science (broadly understood), but many philosophers see a dichotomy between them. The present paper discusses cases where the relevance of certain scientific findings has been denied (related to Zeno’s Dichotomy paradox and to the appeal of skeptical arguments) or overlooked (one argument related to the frame problem of artificial intelligence and Nagel’s “bat” argument). The results caution against overly quick dismissal of the import of science on philosophical questions, whether the latter be of a more theoretical or practical nature.\",\"PeriodicalId\":31446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophies\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9040115\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"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":"Philosophies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9040115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"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

科学与哲学的关系是有争议的。奎因认为哲学与科学(广义理解)是连续的,但许多哲学家认为两者之间存在二分法。本文讨论了某些科学发现的相关性被否认(与芝诺二分悖论和怀疑论的吸引力有关)或被忽视(与人工智能的框架问题和纳格尔的 "蝙蝠 "论证有关的一个论点)的情况。研究结果告诫我们不要过快地否定科学对哲学问题的影响,无论后者是理论性的还是实践性的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Philosophy Untouched by Science? Zeno’s Runner, Sextus’ Epochē, and More
The relationship between science and philosophy is contentious. Quine saw philosophy as continuous with science (broadly understood), but many philosophers see a dichotomy between them. The present paper discusses cases where the relevance of certain scientific findings has been denied (related to Zeno’s Dichotomy paradox and to the appeal of skeptical arguments) or overlooked (one argument related to the frame problem of artificial intelligence and Nagel’s “bat” argument). The results caution against overly quick dismissal of the import of science on philosophical questions, whether the latter be of a more theoretical or practical nature.
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
Philosophies
Philosophies Multiple-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
11.10%
发文量
122
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
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