Element contents
Series: Elements in Metaphysics
Metaphysics and the Sciences
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2024
Summary
This Element presents and critically examines the relationship between metaphysics and the sciences. Section 1 provides a brief introduction. Section 2 looks at the methodological issues that arise when metaphysics and science get into contact, which is a much-debated aspect of the larger dispute concerning philosophical 'naturalism' and 'anti-naturalism'. A taxonomy of possible views is offered. Section 3 looks more specifically at milder forms of naturalism about metaphysics, which attempt in various ways to make it 'continuous' with science while preserving some degree of autonomy for it. Section 4 adds some reflections on what might be regarded as the most pressing open problem when it comes to doing scientifically oriented metaphysics (but also when practising metaphysics or science in isolation): the problem concerning theory choice and the value of non-empirical factors in determining which explanation of certain phenomena should be preferred.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in MetaphysicsOnline ISBN: 9781009238939Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 30 May 2024
References
Aliseda, A., (2006): Abductive Reasoning: Logical Investigations into Discovery and Explanation, Synthese Library 330, Dordrecht, Springer.Google Scholar
Alspector-Kelly, M., (2001): On Quine on Carnap on Ontology, Philosophical Studies, 102, 93–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balaguer, M., (2010): Free Will as an Open Scientific Problem, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bealer, G., (1998): Intuition and the Autonomy of Philosophy, in DePaul, M. and Ramsey, W. (eds.), 201–240.Google Scholar
Bealer, G., (1996): A Priori Knowledge and the Scope of Philosophy, Philosophical Studies, 81, 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigaj, T., (2022): Identity and Indiscernibility in Quantum Mechanics, Switzerland, Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, A. and Tobin, E., (2023): Natural Kinds, in Zalta, E. N. and Nodelman, U. (eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/natural-kinds/.Google Scholar
Bonjour, L., (1998): In Defense of Pure Reason, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, R., (1999): Homeostasis, Species, and Higher Taxa, in Wilson, R. (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 141–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braddon-Mitchell, D. and Nola, R. (eds.), (2009): Conceptual Analysis and Philosophical Naturalism, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brenner, A., (2017): Simplicity as a Criterion of Theory Choice in Metaphysics, Philosophical Studies, 174, 2687–2707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, A., (2020): Keep the Chickens Cooped: The Epistemic Inadequacy of Free Range Metaphysics, Synthese, 197, 1867–1887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno, O., (2023): Dispensing with Facts, Substances and Structures, American Philosophical Quarterly, 60, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno, O., (2021): Neo-Pyrrhonism, Empiricism, and Scientific Activity, Veritas, 1, 1–14.Google Scholar
Bueno, O. and Shalkowski, S. A., (2020): Troubles with Theoretical Virtues: Resisting Theoretical Utility Arguments in Metaphysics, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 101, 2, 456–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callender, C., (2011): Philosophy of Science and Metaphysics. In French, S. and Saatsi, J. (eds.), The Continuum Companion to the Philosophy of Science, London, Continuum, 33–54.Google Scholar
Calosi, C. and Mariani, C., (2021): Quantum Indeterminacy, Philosophy Compass, 16, 4, e12731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R., (1950): Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology, Revue Internationale De Philosophie, 4, 20–40. English translation in Carnap, R., (1967): The Logical Structure of the World and Pseudoproblems in Philosophy, Translated by George, R. A., Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, A., (2017): Scientific Ontology: Integrating Naturalized Metaphysics and Voluntarist Epistemology, Oxford, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakravartty, A., (2017a): Scientific Realism, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/scientific-realism/.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, A., (2013): On the Prospects of Naturalized Metaphysics, in Ross, D., Ladyman, J. and Kincaid, H. (eds.), 27–50.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, A., (2007): A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Climenhaga, N., (2017): Inference to the Best Explanation Made Incoherent, Journal of Philosophy, 14, 251–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R., (2012): Is Psychiatric Classification a Good Thing? in Kendler, K. S. and Parnas, J. (eds.), Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry II: Nosology, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, T., (2016): On Naturalistic Metaphysics, in Clark, K. J. (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Naturalism, Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley and Sons, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, N., (2020): Reflective Equilibrium, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/reflective-equilibrium/.Google Scholar
Day, T. and Kincaid, H., (1994): Putting Inference to the Best Explanation in Its Place, Synthese, 98, 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Caro, M. and Macarthur, D., (2004): Introduction to De Caro, M. and Macarthur, D. (eds.), Naturalism in Question, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1–18.Google Scholar
De Caro, M. and Voltolini, A., (2010): Is Liberal Naturalism Possible? in De Caro, M. and Macarthur, D. (eds.), Naturalism and Normativity, New York, Columbia University Press, 69–86.Google Scholar
DePaul, M. R. and Ramsey, W. M., (eds.) (1998): Rethinking Intuition: The Psychology of Intuition and its Role in Philosophical Inquiry. Maryland, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Douglas, H., (2013): The Value of Cognitive Values, Philosophy of Science, 80, 5, 796–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douven, I., (2022): The Art of Abduction, Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douven, I., (2017): Abduction, in Edward, N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/abduction/.Google Scholar
Douven, I. and Schupbach, J., (2015): Probabilistic Alternatives to Bayesianism: The Case of Explanationism, Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duprè, J., (1993): The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science, Cambridge, Massachussetts, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, G., (2016): How Can Physics Underlie the Mind? Berlin, Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emery, N., (2023): Naturalism Beyond the Limits of Science, New York, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelhard, K., Feldbacher-Escamilla, C. J., Gebharter, A. and Seide, A., (2021): Inductive Metaphysics, Grazer Philosophische Studien, 98.Google Scholar
Flach, P. A. and Kakas, A. C. (eds.), (2000): Abduction and Induction, Dordrecht, Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, S., (2019): Identity and Individuality in Quantum Theory, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/qt-idind/.Google Scholar
French, S., (2014): The Structure of the World: Metaphysics and Representation, Oxford, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, S. and Krause, D., (1995): Vague Identity and Quantum Non-individuality, Analysis, 55, 1, 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, S. and McKenzie, K., (2015): Rethinking Outside the Toolbox: Reflecting Again on the Relationship between Philosophy of Science and Metaphysics, in Bigaj, T. and Wüthrich, C. (eds.), Metaphysics in Contemporary Physics, Amsterdam, Brill, 25–54.Google Scholar
French, S. and McKenzie, K., (2012): Thinking Outside the Toolbox: Towards a More Productive Engagement between Metaphysics and Philosophy of Physics, European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 8, 1, 42–59.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. and Makinson, D., (1988): Revisions of Knowledge Systems Using Epistemic Entrenchment, Proceedings of the Second Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, San Francisco, California, Morgan Kaufmann, 83–95.Google Scholar
Ginet, C., (1966): Might We Have No Choice?, in Lehrer, K. (ed.), Freedom and Determinism, New York, Random House, 87–104.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P., (2006): Theories and Models in Metaphysics, Harvard Review of Philosophy, 14, 4–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. I., (2015): Naturalizing Metaphysics with the Help of Cognitive Science, in Bennett, K. and Zimmerman, D. W. (eds.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, vol. 9, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 171–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. I., (2007): A Program for ‘Naturalizing’ Metaphysics, with Application to the Ontology of Events, The Monist, 90, 457–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. I. and McLaughlin, B. P. (eds.), (2019): Metaphysics and Cognitive Science, New York, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I., (2007): Natural Kinds: Rosy Dawn, Scholastic Twilight, Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 61, 203–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haji, I., (1999): Indeterminism and Frankfurt-Type Examples, Philosophical Explorations, 1, 42–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S. O., (2011): Logic of Belief Revision, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/logic-belief-revision/.Google Scholar
Harman, G., (1965): The Inference to the Best Explanation, Philosophical Review, 74, 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, S. and Sprenger, J., (2011): Bayesian Epistemology, in Pritchard, D. and Bernecker, S. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Epistemology, London, Routledge, 609–620.Google Scholar
Held, C., (2022): The Kochen-Specker Theorem, in Zalta, E. N. and Nodelman, U. (eds.): The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/kochen-specker/.Google Scholar
Hildebrand, T., (2023): Laws of Nature, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, H., (2016): Non-naturalistic Metaphysics, in Clark, K. J. (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Naturalism, Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley and Sons, 168–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, P., (2013): Speculative Ontology, in Ross, D., Ladyman, J. and Kincaid, H. (eds.), 51–78.Google Scholar
Husserl, E., (1970[1936]): The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, translated by Carr, D., Evaston, Illinois, Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Hylton, P., (1994): Quine’s Naturalism, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 19, 261–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansson, L. and Tallant, J., (2017): Quantitative Parsimony: Probably for the Better, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 68, 781–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keas, M. N., (2018): Systematizing Theoretical Virtues, Synthese, 195, 2761–2793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalidi, M. A., (2013): Natural Categories and Human Kinds: Classification in the Natural and Social Sciences, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J., (2011): From Naturalism to Physicalism: Supervenience Redux, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 85, 2, 109–134.Google Scholar
Kornblith, H., (1998): The Role of Intuition in Philosophical Inquiry: An Account with No Unnatural Ingredients, in DePaul, M. and Ramsey, W. (eds.), 129–142.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S., (1977): Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice, in Kuhn, T. S. (ed.), The Essential Tension, Chicago, Illinois, University of Chicago Press, 320–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladyman, J., (2017): An Apology for Naturalized Metaphysics, in Slater, M. and Yudell, Z. (eds.), 141–162.Google Scholar
Ladyman, J., (2012): Science, Metaphysics and Method, Philosophical Studies, 160, 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladyman, J. and Ross, D. (with Spurrett, D. and Collier, J. ), (2007): Every Thing Must Go. Metaphysics Naturalised, Oxford, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libet, B., (2002): Do We Have Free Will? in Kane, R. (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Free Will, New York, Oxford University Press, 551–564.Google Scholar
Lipton, P., (2004): Inference to the Best Explanation, (second edition), London, Routledge.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J., (2011): The Possibility of Metaphysics: Substance, Identity, and Time, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J., (2007): The Four-Category Ontology: A Metaphysical Foundation for Natural Science, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J., (1994): Vague Identity and Quantum Indeterminacy, Analysis, 54, 2, 110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macarthur, D., (2019): Liberal Naturalism and the Scientific Image of the World, Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 62, 5, 565–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackonis, A., (2013): Inference to the Best Explanation, Coherence and Other Explanatory Virtues, Synthese, 190, 6, 975–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maclaurin, J. and Dyke, H., (2012): What Is Analytic Metaphysics For? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 90, 291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddy, P., (2007): Second Philosophy: A Naturalistic Method, Oxford, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnani, L. and Bertolotti, T. (eds.), (2017): Springer Handbook of Model-Based Science, Dordrecht, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallon, D., (2006): Race: Normative, Not Metaphysical or Semantic, Ethics, 116, 33, 525–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maudlin, T., (2007): The Metaphysics within Physics, Oxford, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCain, K. and Poston, T. (eds.), (2017): Best Explanations, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McKenzie, K., (2020): A Curse on Both Houses: Naturalistic versus a Priori Metaphysics and the Problem of Progress, Res Philosophica, 97, 1, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, M. and Parsons, J., (2013): Maclaurin and Dyke on Analytic Metaphysics, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 91, 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, E., (2014): The Virtues of a Good Theory, in Curd, M. and Psillos, S. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science, New York, Routledge, 561–571.Google Scholar
McMullin, E., (1996): Epistemic Virtue and Theory-Appraisal, in Douven, I. and Horsten, L. (eds.), Realism in the Sciences, Leuven, Leuven University Press, 1–34.Google Scholar
McMullin, E., (1992): The Inference that Makes Science, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
McSweeney, M. M., (2023): Metaphysics as Essentially Imaginative and Aiming at Understanding, American Philosophical Quarterly, 60, 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melnyk, A., (2013): Can Metaphysics Be Naturalized? And, if So, How? in Ross, D., Ladyman, J. and Kincaid, H. (eds.), 79–95.Google Scholar
Miller, K. and Norton, J., (2022): Everyday Metaphysical Explanation, Oxford, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammadian, M., (2017): Theoretical Virtues in Science and in Metaphysics, PhD Thesis, University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Morganti, M., (2022): Liberal Naturalism, Ontological Commitment and Explanation, in De Caro, M. and Macarthur, D. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Liberal Naturalism, Oxford, Routledge, 245–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morganti, M., (2020a): Fundamentality in Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Physics. Part I: Metaphysics, Philosophy Compass, 15 (7).Google Scholar
Morganti, M., (2020b): Fundamentality in Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Physics. Part II: The Philosophy of Physics, Philosophy Compass, 15 (10).Google Scholar
Morganti, M., (2013): Combining Science and Metaphysics: Contemporary Physics, Conceptual Revision and Common Sense, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Morganti, M. and Tahko, T. E., (2017): Moderately Naturalistic Metaphysics, Synthese, 194, 2557–2580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nahmias, E., (2014): Is Free Will an Illusion? Confronting Challenges from the Modern Mind Sciences, in Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (ed.), Moral Psychology (Volume 4: Free Will and Moral Responsibility), Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 1–25.Google Scholar
Neta, R., (2007): Review of De Caro, M. and Macarthur, D. (eds.), Naturalism in Question, The Philosophical Review, 116, 657–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, D., (2014): The Dangers of Pragmatic Virtue, Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 57, 623–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, D., (1997): Quantitative Parsimony, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 48, 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okasha, S., (2011): Theory Choice and Social Choice: Kuhn Versus Arrow, Mind, 120, 83–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppenheim, P. and Putnam, H., (1958): The Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2, 3–36.Google Scholar
Paul, L. A., (2012): Metaphysics as Modeling: The Handmaiden’s Tale, Philosophical Studies, 160, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantinga, A., (2002): Introduction and Final Replies to Commentators, in Beilby, J. (ed.), Naturalism Defeated? Essays on Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism, Ithaca, New York, Cornell, 1–12 and 204–276.Google Scholar
Price, H. (2007): Quining Naturalism, Journal of Philosophy, 104 (8), 375–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pust, J., (2019): Intuition, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/intuition/.Google Scholar
Putnam, H., (2004): Ethics without Ontology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. v. O., (1981): Theories and Things, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. v. O., (1951): On Carnap’s Views on Ontology, Philosophical Studies, 2, 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J., (1971): A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, G., (2020): Metaphysics as a Fiction, in Armour-Garb, B. and Kroon, F. (eds.), Fictionalism in Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 28–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, G., (2014): Quine and the Revival of Metaphysics, in Harman, G. and Lepore, E. (eds.), A Companion to W.v.O. Quine, Oxford, John Wiley and Sons, 552–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roskies, A., (2014): Can Neuroscience Resolve Issues about Free Will? in Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (ed.), Moral Psychology (Volume 4: Free Will and Moral Responsibility), Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 103–126.Google Scholar
Ross, D., Ladyman, J. and Kincaid, H. (eds.), (2013): Scientific Metaphysics, Oxford, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rott, H., (2001): Change, Choice and Inference: A Study of Belief Revision and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Oxford, Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saatsi, J., (2017): Explanation and Explanationism in Science and Metaphysics, in Slater, M. and Yudell, Z. (eds.), 162–191.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J., (2009): On What Grounds What, in Manley, D., Chalmers, D. and Wasserman, R. (eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 347–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schindler, S., (2022): Theoretical Virtues: Do Scientists Think What Philosophers Think They Ought to Think? Philosophy of Science, 89, 524–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schindler, S., (2018): Theoretical Virtues in Science: Uncovering Reality through Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schurger, A., Hu, P., Pak, J. and Roskies, A., (2021): What Is the Readiness Potential? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25, 7, 558–570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schurz, G., (2021): Abduction as a Method of Inductive Metaphysics, Grazer Philosophische Studien, 98, 50–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schurz, G., (2017): Patterns of Abductive Inference, in Magnani, L. and Bortolotti, T. (eds.), 151–173.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. S., (1962): Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man, in Colodny, R. (ed.), Frontiers of Science and Philosophy, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1–40.Google Scholar
Shimony, A., (1981): Critique of the Papers of Fine and Suppes, Philosophy of Science, Proceedings 1980, 2, 572–580.Google Scholar
Slater, M. and Yudell, Z. (eds.), (2017): Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science: New Essays, Oxford, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E., (2022): Parsimony Arguments in Science and Metaphysics, and Their Connection with Unification, Fundamentality, and Epistemological Holism, in Ioannidis, S., Vishne, G., Hemmo, M. and Shenker, O. (eds.), Levels of Reality in Science and Philosophy: Re-examining the Multi-level Structure of Reality, Switzerland, Springer International, 229–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E., (2015): Ockham’s Razor: A User’s Manual, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E., (2009): Parsimony Arguments in Science and Philosophy – A Test Case for Naturalism, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 83, 117–155.Google Scholar
Spencer, Q., (2018): Racial Realism I: Are Biological Races Real? Philosophy Compass, 13, 1, e12468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Q., (2018a): Racial Realism II: Are Folk Races Real? Philosophy Compass, 13, 1, e12467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegenga, J., (2015): Theory Choice and Social Choice: Okasha versus Sen, Mind, 124, 263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoljar, D., (2023): Physicalism, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/physicalism/.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F., (1959): Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics, London, Routledge.Google Scholar
Tahko, T. E., (2018): Fundamentality, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/fundamentality/.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. R., (1978): The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice, The Journal of Philosophy, 75, 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torza, A., (2023): Indeterminacy in the World, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullmann-Margalit, E. and Morgenbesser, S., (1977): Picking and Choosing, Social Research: An International Quarterly, 44, 4, 757–785.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. C., (2002): The Empirical Stance, New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. C., (1972): A Formal Approach to the Philosophy of Science, in Colodny, R. (ed.), Paradigms and Paradoxes: The Philosophical Challenge of the Quantum Domain, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, University of Pittsburgh Press, 303–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegner, D., (2002): The Illusion of Conscious Will, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, J., (2023): Ad Hocness, Accomodation and Consilience: A Bayesian Account, Synthese, 201 (2).Google Scholar
Williamson, J., (2010): The Philosophy of Science in Relation to Machine Learning, in Gaber, M. M. (ed.), Scientific Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery: Principles and Foundations, Berlin, Springer, 77–89.Google Scholar
Witmer, G., (2012): Naturalism and Physicalism, in Barnard, R. and Manson, N. (eds.), Continuum Companion to Metaphysics, New York, Bloomsbury, 90–120.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 1
- Cited by