18

The Stack Exchange methodology is based on the original Stack Overflow, which is for CS and programming questions. For those types of questions, the answers are objective in the fact that they either solve the OP's problem or they don't. People are free to upvote for the wrong ones, and it does happen occasionally, but overall, there are enough people who ...


6

A descriptive analysis involves simply stating the facts as they are. A descriptive analysis should not at any point provide any conclusions or generalizations. At most a descriptive analysis may involved providing summaries, descriptive statistics such as means, standard deviations, and graphs and visualizations to better understand the data. In your ...


6

Quinean underdetermination is such a generic form of skepticism that I'd suggest it's epistemologically better to focus on the specific arguments made by climate skeptics. For some philosophical discussions of climate skepticism — certainly written in the wake of Quine's work, though not necessarily directly responding to it — I would recommend these three ...


5

You bring up an important issue for philosophy of science. A rough picture of how science functions something like this. A theory is formed that makes hypotheses or predictions about the world. Evidence is gathered that could corroborate or refute the hypotheses, and from that the theory is either supported or shown to be false. One problem, however, is that ...


5

There are lots of different answers to this that have been offered: The idea that someone can be a better moral agent requires first there being a notion of being a better moral agent. Many philosophers have rejected that there is such a thing - that is, that moral behavior is merely a result of cultural or practical norms. "Being morally better" is only a ...


4

I think the answer depends on whether you're talking about ontology or epistemology. By phrasing the question as you have, I think there's only one practical answer given a modern scientific understanding: culture is the term for a certain set of semi-arbitrary social behaviors of social animals, most particularly Homo sapiens. It's not so much that ...


4

"Criterial" approach stems from Wittgenstein's view of meaning as use, and irreducibility of language to propositional knowledge and logic. Roughly speaking, according to Wittgenstein there are types of knowledge, such as skills, that fall under "know how" rather than "know what", and can not be expressed in propositions, truth conditions and inferences ...


4

SE* do not provide assurances of truth; they provide information. First off, it is a collection of short articles -- just the written content of the answers will provide information, e.g. summaries and references to other works, individuals' experiences, etc. However, the key feature of SE beyond providing a platform for user generated content, is the ...


4

In light of the edits made since I actually composed this reply, I will answer your question first and address your further requests regarding assisting laypeople in understanding philosophy later. The problem is not that philosophy has no value in today's society, which would rather pertain to a different discussion altogether; the problem is that ...


4

Per Quine's results from "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", the Duhem-Quine thesis, and later results such as those of Kuhn and Feyerabend, all empirical observations are theory laden. You missed Popper who pointed this out in 1934 in "Logic of Scientific Discovery". I think the relevant chapter is Chapter V. And Popper is better on this issue than Quine, ...


4

First, keep in mind that the question of whether life as a professor affords a higher kind of pleasure than life as a programmer or a pornographer is one question. A different one is to ask which is better for the world at large -- and thus which you ought to do as a utilitarian. The more I read your question the less sure I am which you are asking about. ...


4

First off, why does Mill make this claim? Historically, Mill makes this claim to avoid an objection to Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism. Bentham views all pleasures as equal so if you get more pleasure from drinking yourself silly and passing out on the street than from reading philosophy, then on Bentham's view, the former action adds more pleasure and winds ...


4

My google search shows that there are no papers discussing 2N2C. The thesis at most was mentioned as a passing interest, never as a focal point. Also, Richard Boyd’ entry on scientific realism in SEP (https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/spr2009/entries/scientific-realism/) was archived, and replaced by a different author (https://plato.stanford....


4

The most comprehensive text that I have run into outlining precisely how the philosophy of positive science -- the study of purportedly rational theory choice -- was conquered by the history/sociology of science, a process which started with the concepts of holism and indeterminacy in the early/mid 20th Century and culminated in the so called Strong Program ...


3

You might find this blog post by Eric Schwitzgebel interesting. He conducted a series of empirical studies to try and determine if professional ethicists behaved more morally than others. His conclusion: Ethicists do not appear to behave better. Never once have we found ethicists as a whole behaving better than our comparison groups of other professors, ...


3

To answer your question fron the title in the realm of science: In general science starts from empiricism and takes empiricism as the benchmark for its success. Hence the first step in science is to make precise observation and to describe in a neutral way what has been observed. This step is description. The next step is to create a theory which allows ...


3

I've been watching my most-popular ever answer recently. It was slightly more popular than others, and the gap increased substantially over time. Then the 2nd-most popular answer (mid-30s upvotes compared to mid-50s upvotes for my own) was selected as the answer. From that point on, that answer was getting upvotes at a substantially faster rate than my ...


3

I think this is a very interesting question (and improved in tone after the edit). First terms: There's some heavy terminology getting thrown about in your question, terminology with debatable meaning. So to start out, I'm going to give the definitions I work from (I've read some Searle but I'm a Hegel scholar -- not a social ontology scholar). I take "...


3

The argument is an obvious appeal to authority, so its validity hinges on whether the authority is relevant. The relevance is established prima facie by examples of scientific and religious worldviews co-existing in multiple people. This argument is by nature defeasible since people holding together incompatible views is hardly unheard of. If the prima facie ...


3

You presented a specific set of claims of contemporary evolutionary moral theory, but I think there are different set of claims you don't acknowledge. It is not that the soldier sacrifices himself because someone else in the group has genes are better, nor is it the narrow case of the parent sacrificing himself for the close genetic relative, the child. ...


3

In the 1980s and 1990s, feminist philosophers played a significant role in bringing attention to the social and political aspects of science. This was around the same time as, but basically independent of, the development of Science and Technology Studies and some major changes in sociology of science. Along with the answers above, I'd recommend the ...


3

Other answers and comments so far have mentioned the sociology of scientific knowledge, and science and technology Studies (STS). The recommendations below are related to the sociology of science / scientific knowledge. One author you should look into is Ludwik Fleck (1896 – 1961), a Polish microbiologist and immunologist whose views on science did not take ...


2

Haha- yeah, I'm pretty sure the term you want is "ignorance". This was not a serious answer since I believe you were asking if there were an "official" philosophical term for it and "ignorance" obviously is not it. However, lest this post be considered a waste of good bytes, I will state that I don't believe there actually IS an official term for it because ...


2

I can't say their theory is right. Not only is the best answer not always voted up (I've seen plenty of counter examples), but the "best" answer is not always the "true" answer. Sometimes the best answer is technically false, but leads people towards inspiration. However, the argument is intriguing in its circularity. The mere presence of the belief that ...


2

I think that the purpose of the Stack Exchange is "practically" fulfilled. I don't think their goal was to devise and extract the "truth" for any given question, it's primarily to help people come to a better (and obviously objective) understanding to their own question. Everyone carries assumptions with their method of thinking and even if given a worded ...


2

It seems to me that the other answers are terribly wrong. 1.They state that philosophy is no use, because you cannot build cars with it. 2.They state that there is no great philosopher nowadays. 3.They state that philosophy is a game for rich kids which the common man does not understand. Reply to 1: It is probably not even true that there would be cars ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible