The Many Inadequate Justifications of Methodological Naturalism
Contrary to proponents’ claims, methodological naturalism is not metaphysically neutral. Consequently, its acceptance as a practice requires justification. Unfortunately for its advocates, attempts to justify it are failures. It cannot be defended as a definition, or a self-imposed limitation, of sc...
Full description
| Author: |
Robert A. Larmer [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Electronic Article |
|---|---|
| Language: |
Czech ; English ; Swedish |
| Published: |
2019 |
|---|
| Subjects: |
|---|
| Containing Work: |
In: Organon F - Institute of Philosophy of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, 2019, 26(2019), 1, Seite 5-24 |
|---|---|
| Containing Work: |
volume:26 ; year:2019 ; number:1 ; pages:5-24 |
| Links: |
https://doi.org/10.31577/orgf.2019.26102 [kostenfrei] https://doaj.org/article/44199b8b520c4afaaead33f2b71eaae2 [kostenfrei] https://www.organonf.com/journal/orgf-2019-26102/ [kostenfrei] Journal toc [kostenfrei] Journal toc [kostenfrei] |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.31577/orgf.2019.26102 |
|---|
| Catalog id: |
DOAJ014004127 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ014004127 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20220418052848.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 200519s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||cze c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.31577/orgf.2019.26102 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ014004127 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJ44199b8b520c4afaaead33f2b71eaae2 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a cze |a eng |a swe | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a B1-5802 | |
| 100 | 0 | |a Robert A. Larmer |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 4 | |a The Many Inadequate Justifications of Methodological Naturalism |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2019 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Contrary to proponents’ claims, methodological naturalism is not metaphysically neutral. Consequently, its acceptance as a practice requires justification. Unfortunately for its advocates, attempts to justify it are failures. It cannot be defended as a definition, or a self-imposed limitation, of science, nor, more modestly, as an inductively justified commitment to natural causes. As a practice, it functions not to further scientific investigation, but rather to impose an explanatory straitjacket. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Ad hominem fallacy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a nomological science | |
| 650 | 4 | |a historical science | |
| 650 | 4 | |a supernatural agency | |
| 650 | 4 | |a inductive generalization | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Robert Pennock | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Philosophy (General) | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Organon F |d Institute of Philosophy of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, 2019 |g 26(2019), 1, Seite 5-24 |w (DE-627)DOAJ000032697 |x 25857150 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:26 |g year:2019 |g number:1 |g pages:5-24 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.31577/orgf.2019.26102 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/44199b8b520c4afaaead33f2b71eaae2 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://www.organonf.com/journal/orgf-2019-26102/ |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1335-0668 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/2585-7150 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 936 | u | w | |d 26 |j 2019 |e 1 |h 5-24 |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 26 |j 2019 |e 1 |h 5-24 | ||