The Spirit of Empiricism?: An Analysis of Empiricism as a Stance
In The Empirical Stance Bas van Fraassen sets out to uncover the spirit of empiricism: “what is empiricism, and what it could be, if it is to be a viable philosophy today?” (2002, p. 31). In answer to this question van Fraassen rejects the canonical characterization of empiricism as a philosophical...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Language: | English en |
Published: |
2013
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/1828/4972 |
id |
ndltd-uvic.ca-oai-dspace.library.uvic.ca-1828-4972 |
---|---|
record_format |
oai_dc |
spelling |
ndltd-uvic.ca-oai-dspace.library.uvic.ca-1828-49722015-01-29T16:52:29Z The Spirit of Empiricism?: An Analysis of Empiricism as a Stance Di Carlo, Navarre Foss, Jeffrey E. empiricism stance van Fraassen In The Empirical Stance Bas van Fraassen sets out to uncover the spirit of empiricism: “what is empiricism, and what it could be, if it is to be a viable philosophy today?” (2002, p. 31). In answer to this question van Fraassen rejects the canonical characterization of empiricism as a philosophical position established on a thesis (such as all knowledge comes from sense experience), and argues that we must endorse empiricism as a philosophical position established in a stance. But what the empirical stance is or entails exactly, van Fraassen has failed to make clear. The purpose of this thesis is to analyze and philosophically evaluate empiricism as a stance. In light of my analysis, however, I will argue that van Fraassen has not provided a concrete characterization of stance empiricism (or indeed stances in general), and that the concept remains problematically vague. In Chapter, 1 I begin with a review and analysis of The Empirical Stance. I discuss van Fraassen’s arguments against the canonical characterization of empiricism, as well as the initial sketch of what stance empiricism is or entails provided by van Fraassen. Furthermore, I offer what I see as the clearest characterization of stance empiricism that can be seen form the initial sketch van Fraassen has provided: that the empirical stance is an epistemic strategy, with a commitment to empirical inquiry. In Chapter 2, I refute a prominent critique which has been made against van Fraassen’s ‘stance-ism’ – that stances are problematically relative. This critique is particularly problematic for stance empiricism as it compromises two of van Fraassen’s proposed characteristics of empiricism. In the remaining chapters I argue that stance empiricism is a problematically vague concept. In Chapter 3, I argue that it is not entirely clear what role experience, and the empirical, is to play in the empirical stance. In Chapter 4, I discuss two characterizations of stances which are similar to that which I draw at the end of Chapter 1. I go on to argue that in light of van Fraassen’s response to such characterizations we can see that they are inadequate in being able to fully encapsulate the concept of a stance. In Chapter 5, I conclude by arguing that for stance empiricism (and indeed any stance) to be a coherent position it must be limited to something in terms of being definable by some necessary beliefs. Furthermore, I offer a potential objection to my thesis – that for van Fraassen vagueness is a nonissue; I rebut this objection by arguing that even by van Fraassen’s own lights stances are problematically vague. Graduate 0422 navarre.dicarlo@gmail.com 2013-09-27T22:30:39Z 2013-09-27T22:30:39Z 2013 2013-09-27 Thesis http://hdl.handle.net/1828/4972 English en Available to the World Wide Web |
collection |
NDLTD |
language |
English en |
sources |
NDLTD |
topic |
empiricism stance van Fraassen |
spellingShingle |
empiricism stance van Fraassen Di Carlo, Navarre The Spirit of Empiricism?: An Analysis of Empiricism as a Stance |
description |
In The Empirical Stance Bas van Fraassen sets out to uncover the spirit of empiricism: “what is empiricism, and what it could be, if it is to be a viable philosophy today?” (2002, p. 31). In answer to this question van Fraassen rejects the canonical characterization of empiricism as a philosophical position established on a thesis (such as all knowledge comes from sense experience), and argues that we must endorse empiricism as a philosophical position established in a stance. But what the empirical stance is or entails exactly, van Fraassen has failed to make clear. The purpose of this thesis is to analyze and philosophically evaluate empiricism as a stance. In light of my analysis, however, I will argue that van Fraassen has not provided a concrete characterization of stance empiricism (or indeed stances in general), and that the concept remains problematically vague.
In Chapter, 1 I begin with a review and analysis of The Empirical Stance. I discuss van Fraassen’s arguments against the canonical characterization of empiricism, as well as the initial sketch of what stance empiricism is or entails provided by van Fraassen. Furthermore, I offer what I see as the clearest characterization of stance empiricism that can be seen form the initial sketch van Fraassen has provided: that the empirical stance is an epistemic strategy, with a commitment to empirical inquiry. In Chapter 2, I refute a prominent critique which has been made against van Fraassen’s ‘stance-ism’ – that stances are problematically relative. This critique is particularly problematic for stance empiricism as it compromises two of van Fraassen’s proposed characteristics of empiricism. In the remaining chapters I argue that stance empiricism is a problematically vague concept. In Chapter 3, I argue that it is not entirely clear what role experience, and the empirical, is to play in the empirical stance. In Chapter 4, I discuss two characterizations of stances which are similar to that which I draw at the end of Chapter 1. I go on to argue that in light of van Fraassen’s response to such characterizations we can see that they are inadequate in being able to fully encapsulate the concept of a stance. In Chapter 5, I conclude by arguing that for stance empiricism (and indeed any stance) to be a coherent position it must be limited to something in terms of being definable by some necessary beliefs. Furthermore, I offer a potential objection to my thesis – that for van Fraassen vagueness is a nonissue; I rebut this objection by arguing that even by van Fraassen’s own lights stances are problematically vague. === Graduate === 0422 === navarre.dicarlo@gmail.com |
author2 |
Foss, Jeffrey E. |
author_facet |
Foss, Jeffrey E. Di Carlo, Navarre |
author |
Di Carlo, Navarre |
author_sort |
Di Carlo, Navarre |
title |
The Spirit of Empiricism?: An Analysis of Empiricism as a Stance |
title_short |
The Spirit of Empiricism?: An Analysis of Empiricism as a Stance |
title_full |
The Spirit of Empiricism?: An Analysis of Empiricism as a Stance |
title_fullStr |
The Spirit of Empiricism?: An Analysis of Empiricism as a Stance |
title_full_unstemmed |
The Spirit of Empiricism?: An Analysis of Empiricism as a Stance |
title_sort |
spirit of empiricism?: an analysis of empiricism as a stance |
publishDate |
2013 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/1828/4972 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT dicarlonavarre thespiritofempiricismananalysisofempiricismasastance AT dicarlonavarre spiritofempiricismananalysisofempiricismasastance |
_version_ |
1716729632579911680 |