论(认识论)逻辑反例外论的形而上学

Q3 Arts and Humanities Principia Pub Date : 2021-07-08 DOI:10.5007/1808-1711.2021.E80109
E. Erickson
{"title":"论(认识论)逻辑反例外论的形而上学","authors":"E. Erickson","doi":"10.5007/1808-1711.2021.E80109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A recent logical anti-exceptionalist trend proposes that logical theories are revisable in the same manner as scientific theories, either on grounds of the method of theory selection or on what counts as evidence for this revision. Given this approximation of logic and science, the present essay analyzes the commitments of both these varieties and argues that, as it currently stands, this kind of anti-exceptionalism is committed to scientific realism, that is, to realism about some unobservable entities evoked in logical theories. The essay argues that anti-exceptionalism cannot be separated into metaphysical and epistemological varieties, and proposed rather to label anti-exceptionalists views either broadly in terms of theory revision, or narrowly in terms of logic’s affinity with science.","PeriodicalId":38561,"journal":{"name":"Principia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the metaphysics of (epistemological) logical anti-exceptionalism\",\"authors\":\"E. Erickson\",\"doi\":\"10.5007/1808-1711.2021.E80109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A recent logical anti-exceptionalist trend proposes that logical theories are revisable in the same manner as scientific theories, either on grounds of the method of theory selection or on what counts as evidence for this revision. Given this approximation of logic and science, the present essay analyzes the commitments of both these varieties and argues that, as it currently stands, this kind of anti-exceptionalism is committed to scientific realism, that is, to realism about some unobservable entities evoked in logical theories. The essay argues that anti-exceptionalism cannot be separated into metaphysical and epistemological varieties, and proposed rather to label anti-exceptionalists views either broadly in terms of theory revision, or narrowly in terms of logic’s affinity with science.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38561,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Principia\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Principia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2021.E80109\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Principia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2021.E80109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近的一种逻辑反例外主义趋势提出,逻辑理论可以以与科学理论相同的方式进行修正,无论是基于理论选择的方法,还是基于这种修正的证据。鉴于逻辑和科学的这种近似,本文分析了这两种变体的承诺,并认为,就目前而言,这种反例外主义致力于科学现实主义,即关于逻辑理论中唤起的一些不可观察实体的现实主义。本文认为,反例外论不能分为形而上学和认识论两种,并建议要么从理论修正的角度对反例外论观点进行宽泛的标记,要么从逻辑与科学的亲和力的角度对其进行狭义的标记。
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
On the metaphysics of (epistemological) logical anti-exceptionalism
A recent logical anti-exceptionalist trend proposes that logical theories are revisable in the same manner as scientific theories, either on grounds of the method of theory selection or on what counts as evidence for this revision. Given this approximation of logic and science, the present essay analyzes the commitments of both these varieties and argues that, as it currently stands, this kind of anti-exceptionalism is committed to scientific realism, that is, to realism about some unobservable entities evoked in logical theories. The essay argues that anti-exceptionalism cannot be separated into metaphysical and epistemological varieties, and proposed rather to label anti-exceptionalists views either broadly in terms of theory revision, or narrowly in terms of logic’s affinity with science.
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
Principia
Principia Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Williamson sobre a vaguidade, o princípio da margem de erro e o princípio KK A negação do número 2 em Grundgesetze e § 46 de Grundlagen: Resposta a N.N. Pons Asinorum para a Lógica Proposicional Clássica Limitaciones de la complejidad en las Ciencias Ómicas: simplificación epistemológica en el abordaje de enfermedades Una Concepción Enactiva de Cultura: Enculturación como Acople Dinámico entre Seres Humanos y sus Entornos de Cultura Material
×
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