重力与恩典

IF 1.4 1区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Philosophers' Imprint Pub Date : 2019-02-25 DOI:10.2307/j.ctv16km193
G. Belot
{"title":"重力与恩典","authors":"G. Belot","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv16km193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper revisits the bearing of underdetermination arguments on scientific realism. First it argues that underdetermination considerations provide good reason to doubt that science is objective in the strong sense that anyone following the its methods will be led closer and closer (without bound) to the truth about any given question within the purview of those methods, as more relevant data are considered. Then it argues that scientific realism is difficult to maintain in the absence of this sort of objectivity.","PeriodicalId":20021,"journal":{"name":"Philosophers' Imprint","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gravity and Grace\",\"authors\":\"G. Belot\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/j.ctv16km193\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper revisits the bearing of underdetermination arguments on scientific realism. First it argues that underdetermination considerations provide good reason to doubt that science is objective in the strong sense that anyone following the its methods will be led closer and closer (without bound) to the truth about any given question within the purview of those methods, as more relevant data are considered. Then it argues that scientific realism is difficult to maintain in the absence of this sort of objectivity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophers' Imprint\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophers' Imprint\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv16km193\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophers' Imprint","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv16km193","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文回顾了不确定性论证对科学实在论的影响。首先,它认为,不充分决定的考虑提供了很好的理由怀疑科学是客观的,因为在强烈的意义上,任何遵循其方法的人都会越来越接近(不受约束)在这些方法范围内的任何给定问题的真相,因为更多的相关数据被考虑在内。然后,它认为,在缺乏这种客观性的情况下,科学实在论很难维持。
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
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Gravity and Grace
This paper revisits the bearing of underdetermination arguments on scientific realism. First it argues that underdetermination considerations provide good reason to doubt that science is objective in the strong sense that anyone following the its methods will be led closer and closer (without bound) to the truth about any given question within the purview of those methods, as more relevant data are considered. Then it argues that scientific realism is difficult to maintain in the absence of this sort of objectivity.
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
Philosophers' Imprint
Philosophers' Imprint PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
27
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Desire Embedded Epistemic Instrumentalism: An Account of Epistemic Normativity Hume on Temporal Experience and the Fiction of Time Without Change Darwin's Causal Argument Against Creationism Too Easy, Too Good, Too Late?
×
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:481959085
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