Logical empiricism, scientific philosophy and academic neutrality

Audrey Yap
{"title":"Logical empiricism, scientific philosophy and academic neutrality","authors":"Audrey Yap","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00243-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Alan Richardson’s short book on the history and significance of logical empiricism not only illuminates the importance of logical empiricists’ projects, but also tells us something useful about the ways we choose to do philosophy in the first place. The book’s primary task is providing us with a critical re-evaluation of the legacy of logical empiricism; in doing so, it raises several important metaphilosophical questions. In this article, I will outline three such issues that I think Richardson’s piece brings out and consider some of their impacts on philosophical practice. First, there is the question of philosophical canons and how we teach the history of philosophy. A second related question is how we classify and understand philosophical positions and movements. And the last question I will discuss through logical empiricism is the extent to which we should and can view academic work as morally and politically neutral.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44204-025-00243-5","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

Alan Richardson’s short book on the history and significance of logical empiricism not only illuminates the importance of logical empiricists’ projects, but also tells us something useful about the ways we choose to do philosophy in the first place. The book’s primary task is providing us with a critical re-evaluation of the legacy of logical empiricism; in doing so, it raises several important metaphilosophical questions. In this article, I will outline three such issues that I think Richardson’s piece brings out and consider some of their impacts on philosophical practice. First, there is the question of philosophical canons and how we teach the history of philosophy. A second related question is how we classify and understand philosophical positions and movements. And the last question I will discuss through logical empiricism is the extent to which we should and can view academic work as morally and politically neutral.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
逻辑经验主义、科学哲学与学术中立性
艾伦·理查森关于逻辑经验主义的历史和意义的小书不仅阐明了逻辑经验主义者项目的重要性,而且还告诉我们一些关于我们首先选择做哲学的方式的有用信息。本书的主要任务是为我们提供对逻辑经验主义遗产的批判性重新评估;在此过程中,它提出了几个重要的形而上学问题。在这篇文章中,我将概述三个这样的问题,我认为理查森的文章带来了,并考虑他们对哲学实践的一些影响。首先是哲学经典的问题,以及我们如何教授哲学史的问题。第二个相关的问题是我们如何分类和理解哲学立场和运动。我将通过逻辑经验主义讨论的最后一个问题是我们应该并且能够在多大程度上将学术工作视为道德和政治中立的。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Discursive normativity and the resources of critical selves On theological contradiction: responses to d’Agostini, Casati & Fujikawa, DeVito, Gómez Gutiérrez, Joaquin & DeVito, and Reese On Hegel and the continental tradition: responses to Estrada-González, Ficara, and Shores On logical pluralism and truth: responses to Goossens & Tedder, Kouri Kissel, Melkonian-Altshuler, and Parent On FDE, theory closure, and related themes: responses to Calasso & Logan, Caret, Omori & Arenhart, and Standefer, Shear & French
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1