Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Suspension of Belief and Epistemologies of Science

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of International Journal for the Study of Skepticism

Epistemological disputes in the philosophy of science often focus on the question of how restrained or expansive one should be in interpreting our best scientific theories and models. For example, some empiricist philosophers countenance only belief in their observable content, while realists of different sorts extend belief (in incompatible ways, reflecting their different versions of realism) to strictly unobservable entities, structures, events, and processes. I analyze these disputes in terms of differences regarding where to draw a line between domains in which one has warrant for belief and those in which one should suspend belief and thus remain sceptical. I consider and defend the idea that the precise location of this line is subject to a form of epistemic voluntarism, and argue that a Pyrrhonian reading of the basis of such voluntaristic choice is both natural and transformative of our understanding of these debates.

Affiliations: 1: University of Notre Dame, chakravartty.1@nd.edu

10.1163/22105700-04031178
/content/journals/10.1163/22105700-04031178
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
10
5
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/22105700-04031178
Loading

Data & Media loading...

1. Alspector-Kelly M. ( 2012). “ "Constructive Empiricism Revisited."” Review of P. Dicken (2010), Metascience Vol 21: 187191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11016-011-9574-9
2. Chakravartty A. ( 2007). A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservable . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. ——. ( 2011). “ "A Puzzle about Voluntarism about Rational Epistemic Stances",” Synthese Vol 178: 3748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9516-x
4. Clarke M. ( 1986). “ "Doxastic Voluntarism and Forced Belief",” Philosophical Studies Vol 50: 3951. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00355159
5. Cooper D. E. ,( 2009). “ "Visions of Philosophy".” In O’Hear A. (ed.), Conceptions of Philosophy , 113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Dicken P. ( 2010). Constructive Empiricism: Epistemology and the Philosophy of Science . London: Palgrave Macmillan.
7. Gendler T. ( 2009). “ "Really, What Are We Doing? Philosophical Methodology from an Empirical Point of View",” St. Andrews: Keynote lecture, Arché Conference on Intuitions & Philosophical Methodology.
8. James W. ( 1956/1897). The Will to Believe, and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy . New York: Dover.
9. Ladyman J. ( 2004). “ "Discussion: Empiricism versus Metaphysics",” Philosophical Studies Vol 121: 133145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-004-5487-4
10. Lipton P. ( 2004). “ "Discussion – Epistemic Options",” Philosophical Studies Vol 121: 147158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-004-5488-3
11. Psillos S. ,( 2007). “ "Putting a Bridle on Irrationality: An Appraisal of Van Fraassen’s New Epistemology".” In Monton B. (ed.), Images of Empiricism: Essays on Science and Stances, with a Reply from Bas C. van Fraassen , 134164. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Ratcliffe M. ( 2011). “ "Stance, Feeling and Phenomenology",” Synthese Vol 178: 121130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9525-9
13. Rattan, G. ( ms). “Disagreement and Conceptual Understanding.”
14. Rosen G. ( 2001). “ "Nominalism, Naturalism, Epistemic Relativism",” Philosophical Perspectives Vol 15: 6991.
15. Schoenfield M. ( 2014). “ "Permission to Believe: Why Permissivism is True and What it Tells Us about Irrelevant Influences on Belief",” Noûs Vol 48: 193218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nous.12006
16. Empiricus Sextus ( 1933). Outlines of Pyrrhonism , translated by R. G. Bury. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
17. Shah N. ( 2002). “ "Clearing Space for Doxastic Voluntarism",” The Monist Vol 85: 436445. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/monist200285326
18. Van Fraassen B. C. ( 2002). The Empirical Stance . New Haven: Yale University Press.
19. ——. ( 2004). “ "Replies to Discussion on The Empirical Stance ",” Philosophical Studies Vol 121: 171192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-004-5490-9
20. ——. ( 2007). “ "From a View of Science to a New Empiricism".” In Monton B. (ed.), Images of Empiricism: Essays on Science and Stances, with a Reply from Bas C. van Fraassen , 337383. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/22105700-04031178
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/22105700-04031178
2015-04-22
2017-11-23

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    International Journal for the Study of Skepticism — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation