The thesis explores the semantics of epistemic justification discourse, a very important part of overall epistemic discourse. It embarks from a critical examination of referentialist theories to arrive at a certain nonreferential, expressivist approach to the semantics of epistemic justification discourse. That is, it criticizes the main referentialist theories and then goes on to argue for an expressivist approach on the basis of its theoretical capacity to outflank the problems referentialist theories meet. In the end, I also identify some problems for a prominent expressivist theory and, as a response to these problems, propose a novel norm-expressivist approach that seems to evade these problems. In particular, in Ch.1 I introduce what I call ‘the epistemic justification puzzle’ and then in Chs.2-4 criticize naturalistic referential theories: analytic naturalistic reductionism, synthetic naturalistic reductionism and epistemic kinds realism. In Ch.5 I criticize nonnaturalist referential theories: what I call ‘naïve’ nonnaturalism and J.McDowell’s (1994) more sophisticated quietist version of nonnaturalism. Next, in Ch.6 I introduce the semantic programme of expressivism and go on to construct a simple version of epistemic norm-expressivism (inspired by A.Gibbard (1990)) in order to explain how expressivism can easily outflank the identified problems of referentialist theories. This simple norm-expressivist theory, however, is only used as a theoretical ‘toy’ for the mere sake of motivating the possibility of expressivism, as in Ch.7 I go on to argue for a more sophisticated version of norm-expressivism: habitsendorsement expressivism. In Ch.7 I introduce a prominent expressivist theory of moral and knowledge discourses, namely, plan-reliance expressivism (credited to A.Gibbard (2003, 2008)) and extend it cover the epistemic justification discourse. I then identify some problems for plan-reliance expressivism as extended to cover justification discourse and in response to these problems propose habits-endorsement expressivism. Habits-endorsement expressivism builds on the intuition that (justified) belief-fixation is habitual and exploits the theoretical flexibility of the notion of habits in order to overcome the identified problems of plan-reliance expressivism.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Scientific realism and antirealism are two main views in the philosophy of science regarding the status of unobservable entities in science and whether we have good epistemic reasons to believe that our current successful scientific theories are (approximately) true. Briefly, the former claims that our scientific theories are (approximately) true and unobservable entities these scientific theories postulate exist. On the other hand, the latter claims that we do not have good epistemic reasons to believe that our scientific theories are (approximately) true and that unobservable entities our scientific theories postulate exist. The scientific realism has two primary tenets, one axiological (i.e., science should seek truth) and the other epistemological (namely, our current successful theories are (approximately) true). In this thesis, the issue has been examined from standpoint of the account of Peirce’s philosophy of science, more accurately based on his understanding of reality, truth and basic idealism. In the first chapter, I outline the main points of the debate from the perspectives of both sides. In the second chapter, I give reasons why the scientific realists’ argument is not convincing. In the third chapter, I attempt to draw an accurate picture of the account of Peirce’s views on the nature of scientific theories. In the last chapter, I make a case for scientific realism from the Peircean account of philosophy of science. I have claimed why the current debate cannot be settled without accepting a kind of Peirce's basic idealism and his understanding of reality. I think both scientific realists and antirealists accept a kind of naïve realism. This is the main reason why it is not possible to settle the debate from their standpoints. In order to overcome this issue, I attempt to develop a more sophisticated realism based on Peirce’s understanding of reality, truth and basic idealism.

<p>Finns det värdefakta? Kan vi ha kunskap i moralfrågor? Finns det över huvud taget rätt och fel i moralfrågor? Med dessa frågor i bakhuvudet vill författaren undersöka ett vanligt argument mot moralisk realism i allmänhet, och Michael Huemers variant av moralisk realism i synnerhet. Detta antirealistiska argument säger att det är så pass vanligt med oenigheter i moralfrågor och att den bästa förklaringen till detta är att moralen är subjektiv. Argumentet säger vidare att etiken lider av bristande konvergens beträffande upplösta etiska oenigheter över tid, jämfört med exempelvis naturvetenskapen. Detta faktum verkar, menar vissa antirealister, ytterligare tala emot att det existerar värdefakta. Med detta som utgångspunkt tar uppsatsförfattaren reda på varför argumentet misslyckas med att skada Michael Huemers moraliska realism.</p>

abstract: This is a study of scientific realism, and of the extent to which it is undermined by objections that have been raised by advocates of various forms of antirealism. I seek to develop and present a version of scientific realism that improves on past formulations, and then to show that standard antirealist arguments against it do not succeed. In this paper, I will first present my formulation of scientific realism, which conceives of theories as model-based and as fundamentally non-linguistic. I advocate an epistemic position that accords with indirect realism, and I review and assess the threat posed by theses of underdetermination. Next, I review and discuss three important views: the antirealist constructivist view of Thomas Kuhn, the realist view of Norwood Hanson, and the antirealist constructive empiricist view of Bas van Fraassen. I find merits and flaws in all three views. In the course of those discussions, I develop the theme that antirealists' arguments generally depend on assumptions that are open to question, especially from the perspective of the version of realism I advocate. I further argue that these antirealist views are undermined by their own tacit appeals to realism. / Dissertation/Thesis / Ph.D. Philosophy 2013

Finns det värdefakta? Kan vi ha kunskap i moralfrågor? Finns det över huvud taget rätt och fel i moralfrågor? Med dessa frågor i bakhuvudet vill författaren undersöka ett vanligt argument mot moralisk realism i allmänhet, och Michael Huemers variant av moralisk realism i synnerhet. Detta antirealistiska argument säger att det är så pass vanligt med oenigheter i moralfrågor och att den bästa förklaringen till detta är att moralen är subjektiv. Argumentet säger vidare att etiken lider av bristande konvergens beträffande upplösta etiska oenigheter över tid, jämfört med exempelvis naturvetenskapen. Detta faktum verkar, menar vissa antirealister, ytterligare tala emot att det existerar värdefakta. Med detta som utgångspunkt tar uppsatsförfattaren reda på varför argumentet misslyckas med att skada Michael Huemers moraliska realism.

On the assumption that there are no objective normative facts, what is the best theory of normative language? I try to answer this question. Chapter 1 argues for a presumption against noncognitivism and explains why error-theories are of limited interest: they concern adverbs and adjectives like ‘moral’, but not words like ‘ought’, ‘good’ and ‘reason’. This narrows down the options: the best subjectivist theory of normative language is a truth conditional, non-error-theoretic account. Chapter 2 argues for contextualism about normative statements. Contextualists hold that their truth conditions (can) vary with the context of utterance. Chapter 3 starts the assessment of contextualist theories. It looks into Humean accounts. Problems are revealed with both Harman’s and Schroeder’s versions. Chapter 4 develops a form of indexical relativism according to which the truth of normative statements depends on contextually salient rules. I present imperative-based analyses of ‘ought’ and ‘reason’ and show how they can explain why ‘A ought to X’ entails that the balance of reasons favours that A X-es. Chapter 5 further develops the theory of chapter 4 and applies it to the words ‘good’ and ‘must’. It turns out to be hard to analyse ‘good’. It also emerges that ‘must’ and ‘ought’ cannot be given different truth conditions. Chapter 6 explains Stephen Finlay’s end-relational theory. On this account, normative statements concern the relation in which acts or objects stand to contextually salient ends. In the case of ‘ought’ and ‘good’, this relation is one of probability raising. Chapter 7 discusses and answers some familiar objections to Finlay’s view. Chapter 8 raises some new problems, related to the fact that normative judgments are often made in the light of several ends. Chapter 9 explains why the end-relational theory is nonetheless the best subjectivist theory of normative language.

O objetivo principal desta tese é argumentar a favor da intuição básica do realismo científico, com o apoio de uma versão fortalecida e articulada do argumento do milagre. O realismo científico é uma concepção filosófica da ciência que assume uma atitude epistêmica otimista frente aos resultados da investigação científica que abrangem aspectos do mundo tanto observáveis como inobserváveis. Segundo o realismo científico, as entidades inobserváveis postuladas pelas teorias científicas bem-sucedidas têm existência real e essas teorias são verdadeiras ou aproximadamente verdadeiras. Essa atitude positiva é contestada por diversas perspectivas filosóficas conhecidas coletivamente como formas de antirrealismo científico (positivismo lógico, instrumentalismo, empirismo construtivo, historicismo, construtivismo social etc.). Procuramos analisar e rebater três importantes modalidades de argumentação antirrealista: a subdeterminação empírica das teorias, a indução pessimista e a circularidade viciosa da inferência da melhor explicação. Argumentamos que não obstante as diferenças que se mantêm entre as concepções realistas da ciência, o chamado argumento do milagre constitui uma peça central na defesa do realismo científico. Esse argumento se expressa na célebre formulação de Putnam (1975, p. 73), [...] o realismo científico é a única filosofia que não faz do sucesso da ciência um milagre. Para o realista científico, a ciência é bem-sucedida em explicar e prever fenômenos, inclusive novos, porque suas melhores teorias (maduras, não ad hoc, bem-sucedidas empírica e instrumentalmente, provedora de previsões novas, fecundas etc.) são (parcial ou aproximadamente) verdadeiras e as entidades inobserváveis postuladas por essas teorias realmente existem. Argumentamos também que outros esquemas de explicação para o êxito científico baseados em visões antirrealistas ou não-realistas da ciência são insatisfatórios. Examinamos diversas formas de fortalecer o argumento do milagre mediante as qualificações de novidade preditiva e fecundidade teórica, e concluímos que esse argumento continua sendo basilar e estratégico na defesa do realismo científico. / The main objective of this thesis is to argue in favor of the basic intuition of scientific realism, with the support of a strengthened and articulated version of the miracle argument. Scientific realism is a philosophical conception of science that takes an optimistic epistemic attitude towards the results of scientific research concerning both observable and unobservable aspects of the world. According to scientific realism, the unobservable entities postulated by successful scientific theories actually exist, and these theories are true or approximately true. This positive attitude is challenged by various philosophical perspectives known collectively as forms of scientific antirealism (logical positivism, instrumentalism, constructive empiricism, historicism, social constructivism, etc.). We analyze and rebut three important modalities of the antirealist argument: empirical underdetermination of theories, pessimistic induction, and the vicious circularity of inference to the best explanation. We argue that despite the differences that remain between the realist conceptions of science, the so-called miracle argument is a centerpiece in the defense of scientific realism. This argument is expressed in Putnams famous formulation (1975a, p. 73): [...] realism is the only philosophy that doesnt make the success of the science a miracle. For the scientific realist, science is successful in explaining and predicting phenomena, including new ones, because its best theories (mature, not ad hoc, successful empirically and instrumentally, providing new forecasts, fruitful, etc.) are (partially or approximately) true and the unobservable entities postulated by these theories really exist. We also argue that other schemes of explanation of scientific success, based on antirealist or non-realist views of science, are unsatisfactory. We examine various ways of strengthening the miracle argument based on the notions of predictive novelty and theoretical fruitfulness, and we conclude that this argument remains fundamental and strategic in the defense of scientific realism.

Some form of absolutism has generally been the majority view within philosophy and in other traditions, and it is common to take absolutism for granted without providing rational arguments or empirical evidence in support of it. However, such attitudes are not viable if we want to avoid dogmatism. In this paper, I question absolutism and the closely associated correspondence theory of truth through the writings of Goodman and Nāgārjuna. I first describe Goodman‟s philosophy with a focus on his works dealing with „worldmaking‟ and multiple true versions. Subsequently follows an outline of Nāgārjuna‟s philosophy, in which he intended to show that the notion of an essence, an inherently existent entity or relation, is incoherent and that essences would be incompatible with experience. I then reflect on the relation between absolutism and relativism, and propose that the philosophies of Goodman and Nāgārjuna make it possible to transcend both. The paper ends with a discussion on the notion of knowledge in the absence of absolute entities and essences. From the works of Goodman, Nāgārjuna, and Bohm, I put forward the idea that an aspiration for a greater good and fitting is more general than a desire for knowledge of entities, and that it is therefore important to be aware of the larger context in which any given entity appears so that it can be seen to what extent further inquiry and use of it can lead to a greater good and fitting.

No description available.

O objetivo principal desta tese é argumentar a favor da intuição básica do realismo científico, com o apoio de uma versão fortalecida e articulada do argumento do milagre. O realismo científico é uma concepção filosófica da ciência que assume uma atitude epistêmica otimista frente aos resultados da investigação científica que abrangem aspectos do mundo tanto observáveis como inobserváveis. Segundo o realismo científico, as entidades inobserváveis postuladas pelas teorias científicas bem-sucedidas têm existência real e essas teorias são verdadeiras ou aproximadamente verdadeiras. Essa atitude positiva é contestada por diversas perspectivas filosóficas conhecidas coletivamente como formas de antirrealismo científico (positivismo lógico, instrumentalismo, empirismo construtivo, historicismo, construtivismo social etc.). Procuramos analisar e rebater três importantes modalidades de argumentação antirrealista: a subdeterminação empírica das teorias, a indução pessimista e a circularidade viciosa da inferência da melhor explicação. Argumentamos que não obstante as diferenças que se mantêm entre as concepções realistas da ciência, o chamado argumento do milagre constitui uma peça central na defesa do realismo científico. Esse argumento se expressa na célebre formulação de Putnam (1975, p. 73), [...] o realismo científico é a única filosofia que não faz do sucesso da ciência um milagre. Para o realista científico, a ciência é bem-sucedida em explicar e prever fenômenos, inclusive novos, porque suas melhores teorias (maduras, não ad hoc, bem-sucedidas empírica e instrumentalmente, provedora de previsões novas, fecundas etc.) são (parcial ou aproximadamente) verdadeiras e as entidades inobserváveis postuladas por essas teorias realmente existem. Argumentamos também que outros esquemas de explicação para o êxito científico baseados em visões antirrealistas ou não-realistas da ciência são insatisfatórios. Examinamos diversas formas de fortalecer o argumento do milagre mediante as qualificações de novidade preditiva e fecundidade teórica, e concluímos que esse argumento continua sendo basilar e estratégico na defesa do realismo científico. / The main objective of this thesis is to argue in favor of the basic intuition of scientific realism, with the support of a strengthened and articulated version of the miracle argument. Scientific realism is a philosophical conception of science that takes an optimistic epistemic attitude towards the results of scientific research concerning both observable and unobservable aspects of the world. According to scientific realism, the unobservable entities postulated by successful scientific theories actually exist, and these theories are true or approximately true. This positive attitude is challenged by various philosophical perspectives known collectively as forms of scientific antirealism (logical positivism, instrumentalism, constructive empiricism, historicism, social constructivism, etc.). We analyze and rebut three important modalities of the antirealist argument: empirical underdetermination of theories, pessimistic induction, and the vicious circularity of inference to the best explanation. We argue that despite the differences that remain between the realist conceptions of science, the so-called miracle argument is a centerpiece in the defense of scientific realism. This argument is expressed in Putnams famous formulation (1975a, p. 73): [...] realism is the only philosophy that doesnt make the success of the science a miracle. For the scientific realist, science is successful in explaining and predicting phenomena, including new ones, because its best theories (mature, not ad hoc, successful empirically and instrumentally, providing new forecasts, fruitful, etc.) are (partially or approximately) true and the unobservable entities postulated by these theories really exist. We also argue that other schemes of explanation of scientific success, based on antirealist or non-realist views of science, are unsatisfactory. We examine various ways of strengthening the miracle argument based on the notions of predictive novelty and theoretical fruitfulness, and we conclude that this argument remains fundamental and strategic in the defense of scientific realism.