Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T12:11:04.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constructive Empiricism and Deflationary Truth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Jamin Asay
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Constructive empiricists claim to offer a reconstruction of the aim and practice of science without adopting all the metaphysical commitments of scientific realism. Deflationists about truth boast of the ability to offer a full account of the nature of truth without adopting the metaphysical commitments accompanying substantive accounts. Though the two views would form an attractive package, I argue that the pairing is not possible: constructive empiricism requires a substantive account of truth. I articulate what sort of account of truth and empirical adequacy the constructive empiricist must offer and then show why deflationists cannot uphold such an account.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 76 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 423 - 443
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

My thanks go out to Marc Lange, Keith Simmons, and especially John Roberts, whose contributions and suggestions significantly helped shape the final form of this essay. Thanks also go to the participants of the 2006 Carolina Philosophy Retreat at Cranberry Lake, NY, who heard and offered helpful feedback on a very preliminary sketch of the ideas presented here.

References

Bar-On, Dorit, and Simmons, Keith (2007), “The Use of Force against Deflationism: Assertion and Truth”, in Greimann, Dirk and Siegwart, Geo (eds.), Truth and Speech Acts: Studies in the Philosophy of Language. London: Routledge, 61–89.Google Scholar
Bub, Jeffrey, and MacCallum, David (1988), review of Images of Science: Essays on Realism and Empiricism, with a Reply from Bas C. van Fraassen by Paul M. Churchland and Clifford A. Hooker, Foundations of Physics Letters 1:395–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, Marian (1994), Correspondence and Disquotation: An Essay on the Nature of Truth. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald (1996), “The Folly of Trying to Define Truth”, The Folly of Trying to Define Truth 93:263–278.Google Scholar
Ellis, Brian (1985), “What Science Aims to Do”, in Churchland, Paul M. and Hooker, Clifford A. (eds.), Images of Science: Essays on Realism and Empiricism, with a Reply from Bas C. van Fraassen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 48–74.Google Scholar
Field, Hartry (1994), “Deflationist Views of Meaning and Content”, Deflationist Views of Meaning and Content 103:249–285.Google Scholar
Fine, Arthur (1984), “And Not Anti-realism Either”, And Not Anti-realism Either 18:51–65.Google ScholarPubMed
Fine, Arthur (1986), “Unnatural Attitudes: Realist and Instrumentalist Attachments to Science”, Unnatural Attitudes: Realist and Instrumentalist Attachments to Science 95:149–179.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob ([1918–19] 1956), “The Thought: A Logical Inquiry”, The Thought: A Logical Inquiry 65:289–311. Reprint. Translated by A. M. and Marcelle Quinton. Originally published in Beiträge zur Philosophie des Deutschen Idealismus.Google Scholar
Gardner, Martin (1970), “The Fantastic Combinations of John Conway's New Solitaire Game ‘Life'”, The Fantastic Combinations of John Conway's New Solitaire Game ‘Life' 223:120–123.Google Scholar
Hill, Christopher (2002), Thought and World: An Austere Portrayal of Truth, Reference, and Semantic Correspondence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horwich, Paul (1990), Truth. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jennings, Richard (1989), “Scientific Quasi-Realism”, Scientific Quasi-Realism 98:225–245.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (2001), “Real Realism: The Galilean Strategy”, Real Realism: The Galilean Strategy 110:151–197.Google Scholar
Künne, Wolfgang (2003), Conceptions of Truth. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladyman, James (2000), “What's Really Wrong with Constructive Empiricism? Van Fraassen and the Metaphysics of Modality”, What's Really Wrong with Constructive Empiricism? Van Fraassen and the Metaphysics of Modality 51:837–856.Google Scholar
Ladyman, James (2004), “Constructive Empiricism and Modal Metaphysics: A Reply to Monton and van Fraassen”, Constructive Empiricism and Modal Metaphysics: A Reply to Monton and van Fraassen 55:755–765.Google Scholar
Monton, Bradley, and van Fraassen, Bas C. (2003), “Constructive Empiricism and Modal Nominalism”, Constructive Empiricism and Modal Nominalism 54:405–422.Google Scholar
Muller, F. A. (2005), “The Deep Black Sea: Observability and Modality Afloat”, The Deep Black Sea: Observability and Modality Afloat 56:61–99.Google Scholar
Psillos, Stathis (1999), Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary (1975), Mathematics, Matter, and Method: Philosophical Papers, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1970), Philosophy of Logic. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Rosenhagen, Raja (2006), “Indexical Truth and Anti-metaphysical Inclinations: Getting Rid of the Remnants of Realism”, in Berg-Hildebrand, Andreas and Suhm, Christian (eds.), Bas C. van Fraassen: The Fortunes of Empiricism. Frankfurt: Ontos, 81–91.Google Scholar
Sayre-McCord, Geoffrey (1986), “The Many Moral Realisms”, The Many Moral Realisms 24 (suppl.): 1–22.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid (1963), Science, Perception and Reality. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick (1989), The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Teller, Paul (2001), “Whither Constructive Empiricism?”, Whither Constructive Empiricism? 106:123–150.Google Scholar
Thompson, Paul (1989), The Structure of Biological Theories. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1970), “On the Extension of Beth's Semantics of Physical Theories”, On the Extension of Beth's Semantics of Physical Theories 37:325–339.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1972), “A Formal Approach to the Philosophy of Science”, in Colodny, Robert G. (ed.), Paradigms and Paradoxes: The Philosophical Challenge of the Quantum Domain. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 303–366.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1987), “The Semantic Approach to Scientific Theories”, in Nersessian, Nancy J. (ed.), The Process of Science. Dordrecht: Nijhoff, 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1989), Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1991), Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1997), “Elgin on Lewis's Putnam's Paradox”, Elgin on Lewis's Putnam's Paradox 94:85–93.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (2006), “Replies to the Papers”, in Berg-Hildebrand, Andreas and Suhm, Christian (eds.), Bas C. van Fraassen: The Fortunes of Empiricism. Frankfurt: Ontos, 125–171.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (2008), Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Michael (1999), “Meaning and Deflationary Truth”, Meaning and Deflationary Truth 96:545–564.Google Scholar
Wright, Crispin (1992), Truth and Objectivity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar