tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post7657394261650965296..comments2024-03-28T13:40:26.497+00:00Comments on M-Phi: "Naturalism" in MetaphysicsJeffrey Ketlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01753975411670884721noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-22130975738566700852016-04-12T23:44:38.798+01:002016-04-12T23:44:38.798+01:00physics practical work and equation is very import...physics practical work and equation is very important for me and this article tell me how to solve and explain his detail thanks for share it <a href="http://www.personalstatementreview.com/" rel="nofollow">personal statement review</a> .Allen jeleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312119051975318074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-45920017481824833262015-02-03T02:01:36.763+00:002015-02-03T02:01:36.763+00:00Perhaps the point is that some metaphysical hypoth...Perhaps the point is that some metaphysical hypothesis make no observable difference even when all auxilliary assumptions are considered. Take for example the debate between tropes and universals (whether concrete properties are particulars with a resemblance relation, or instances of a universal). I am not sure this can make an observable difference.Quentin Ruyanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395553776256376317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-90464771753750531442015-02-01T15:15:39.715+00:002015-02-01T15:15:39.715+00:00You might as well classify anything we see as unob...You might as well classify anything we see as unobservable since eyes are mere probes connected via "wires' to our brain. It's not clear at all that this differs from observing magnetic fields 'indirectly' via man-made instruments.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-35960706302488398902014-12-30T07:53:48.748+00:002014-12-30T07:53:48.748+00:00Hi,
This comment is about the last paragraph of t...Hi,<br /><br />This comment is about the last paragraph of this post. <br />Perhaps there was no opposition between the metaphysics practiced by Russell/Frege/Moore and the science of their time, but whether that is true about contemporary analytic metaphysics --as is practiced by institutionally recognized metaphysicians, and as is published by the leading journals of analytic philosophy-- and contemporary science, I find it much more non-trivial to show. After all, there are many criticisms (e.g. by van Fraassen, Maudlin, Ladyman & Ross, French, Dennett...) that the "no opposition" view has to overcome, and it does not seem to be true that such criticisms are blocked by noting that a particular version of verificationism fails, or that our "founding fathers" did very well...<br />(Consider the example of the famed and still influential Lewisian doctrine of Humean Supervenience. It has been repeteadly argued (e.g. by Maudlin) that it is incompatible with what we now know from quantum mechanics; and to counter that argument, one needs to show (as it has been tried) that Humean Supervenience is indeed compatible with QM: claiming that the work of Russell and Frege is compatible with the science of their times is, I’m afraid, somewhat beside the point.)carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03631476894943998012noreply@blogger.com