The ‘traditional’ objections to a wholly naturalistic metaphysics, within the modern Western philosophical tradition, involve the vexed notions of freedom and consciousness. But there is, I think, a much deeper and more interesting line of criticism to naturalism, and that involves the notion of intentionality and its closely correlated notion of normativity.
What is involved in my belief that I’m drinking a beer as I type this? Well, my belief is about something — namely, the beer that I’m drinking. But what does this “aboutness” consist of? It requires, among other things, a commitment that I have undertaken — that I am prepared to respond to the appropriate sorts of challenges and criticisms of my belief. I’m willing to play the game of giving and asking for reasons, and my willingness to be so treated is central to how others regard me as their epistemic peer. But there doesn’t seem to be any way that the reason-giving game can be explained entirely in terms of the neurophysiological story of what’s going on inside my cranium. That neurophysiological story is a story of is the case, and the reason-giving story is essentially a normative story — of what ought to be the case.
And if Hume is right — as he certainly seems to be! — in saying that one cannot derive an ought-statement from an is-statement,and if naturalism is an entirely descriptive/explanatory story that has no room for norms, then in light of the central role that norms play in human life (including their role in belief, desire, perception, and action), it is reasonable to conclude that naturalism cannot be right.
(Of course, it does not follow from this that any version of theism or ‘supernaturalism’ must be right, either.)
walto’s world:
Q: “Would you like to buy insurance?”
A: “Perhaps.”
R: “O.k., then why don’t you tell me first what you think ‘insurance’ means and then I’ll sell it to you.”
LOL!
Naturalist: what KN and almost everyone else here at TSZ is by ideological commitment (which for most just means, worldview atheist & ‘anti-supernatural’).
Did walto say this (?):
Q: “Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?”
A: “The question is too unclear to answer”
(Over 75% didn’t have a problem answering ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ Then again, walto is not an actual philosopher or teacher of philosophy, unlike KN)
http://philpapers.org/profile/7783/myview.html
I’m not going to offer a course on ‘The Skeptical Zone’ to a USAmerican ex-philosopher, current insurance salesman who is an avowed atheist to help him understand what he believes about what is ‘natural’ and ‘non-natural’! THAT would be moronic and pointless.
To his credit, KN was at least on to something, even if his anger got in the way of a very basic question: What alternative ideology to ‘naturalism’ is Kantian Naturalist suggesting or proposing (other than ‘supernaturalism’)? ‘walto’ butting in and saying there cannot be any alternative because the question is nonsensical (to him) doesn’t help move anything forward.
walto,
“Even though it doesn’t sense”?
That doesn’t make sense, walto, for one meaning of the phrase “make sense”.
Under another meaning of the phrase, it does make sense, because I am able to figure out that you accidentally omitted the word “make”.
Thank you for supplying a real-life example that vividly demonstrates my point.
Note that by actually reading for comprehension, I was able to determine your intended meaning. It’s a handy skill to have, and well worth cultivating.
Indeed.
I’m glad we agree.
walto wrote that entry…..
F… me, my sides ache! It’s not as if Walto didn’t already mention it.
Well put, Walto.
Gregory,
Gregory’s world:
G: Walto, do you consider yourself a ‘naturalist’?
W: I’d need a definition…
G: That’s typical ‘show me yours first’ rhetoric. What, don’t you know what it means? Give me your definition!
W: Okay, here goes…
G: That’s not what I meant, waaaah!
Funny thing is, this has happened before.
“Evolutionism”, anyone?
Very droll and enjoyable.
KN provided two contrasting definitions of naturalism. At first, I thought he was sympathetic to Horwich’s, especially since he mentioned “anti-supernaturalism” in is OP. But I not sure if he (or you or Keith) would agree with the word “facts” in this excerpt from Horwich’s definition:
In particular, I am not sure how he would treat pragmatic statements, which KN says are non-naturalistic.
It seems his approach would be some combination of Sellars and existential phenomenology.
If he ever returns, I hope he will elaborate further on how these combine to address the problems with semantics and understanding that he raised as being barriers to naturalism (at least in Rosenberg’s sense).
BTW, the preview of the book on Naturalism that KN mentions in the first link above includes the first 30 pages or so of the book, which covers an well written intro/overview and Horwich’s short contribution.
walto,
Well, false ought statements certainly don’t pose a problem for naturalism. If I wake up tomorrow with the moral conviction that I must polish the nose of the Statue of Liberty, that is no reason to burn your Naturalist Society membership card.
I covered this in an earlier comment:
keiths,
Sorry for the typo. It was supposed to read “…it doesn’t make sense.” I’m surprised a man of your giant intellect couldn’t figure out that I’d left out the word “make” there–but likely you were busy advancing unified field science.
Gregory,
Sorry bro, wrong again (keep up the nearly perfect average!)–I may not have been teaching phil. when I wrote that, but I have a gig again now. First time in many years.
Plus, I *LOVE* the line you LOL’ed at! Simply cannot believe I said you were humorless!!
I mean, “What do you think ‘insurance’ means?” Hilare! But you gotta stop already, I can’t breathe!!!
I’ve taken no position one way or the other about what does or doesn’t pose a problem for naturalism. I’ve corrected what I take to have been some errors in your posts, whatever they may or may not pose any problems for. I’ve noticed that sort of knee-jerk reaction from you before. I think it stems from too much interaction with intelligent design defenders, etc. You have to learn that you can be wrong about something without being nuts.
Yup. Showed your insurance-salesman/philosophist rhetoric, way out of touch with most USAmericans.
So now you’ve got a job teaching ‘philosophy’ in the USA and yet still don’t know what ‘naturalism’ means? That’s rich and sad. Farmington State University must not have taught you much.
What alternative ideology to ‘naturalism’ is Kantian Naturalist suggesting or proposing (other than ‘supernaturalism’)?
That’s the KEY to this thread.
Don’t forget what KN said (before failing to explain it or back it up with an alternative):
The 90%+ ‘naturalists’ here at TSZ will not offer answers to the question above. No surprise. KN was at least honest in his hesitancy (in this thread and elsewhere). Most here, including moderators, are not as aware of their self-contradictions.
“Farmington State University must not have taught you much. ”
Love that. Classic.
Thanks. I meant it with a sense of humour. Come on, a ‘philosophy’ teacher (ex-insurance salesman) in the USA who is unfamiliar with ‘naturalism’? What a joke.
This thread is titled “A Critique of Naturalism.” The criticism of ‘naturalism’ has been pretty much absurd and no alternatives have yet been offered. Classic TSZ!
Lizzie & TSZ’s skepticism of IDT is one thing; its (largely atheist & agnostic) pretensions to offering knowledge or inspiration are another.
I was thinking what you’ve been right about on this thread and the only thing I can think of is that Farmington State University didn’t teach me much. That is true: I learned basically nothing at that place. Not only that but, truth to tell, I’m kind of a bust as an ex-insurance salesman. Not a single sale ever. But enough about my manifest failures.
You, OTOH, have your extremely high percentage of making statements that are false. I defy anybody to deny that percentage: it’s up there at Guinness Book levels. Stratospheric. And nobody can ever take that away from you, man. Not all the damnable naturalists here. Not the godless philosophists. Nobody.
I would characterize Gregory as not even wrong.
I cannot think of anything he has said that couldn’t be reduced to a simple insult.
Oh goodness, he’s made a veiled admission directly dealing with the OP’s claimed ‘critique of naturalism’ and the reason why nothing significant has yet been said against ‘naturalism’ (due to the many “damnable naturalists here”). What a shocker!
keiths:
walto:
Like I said, walto, reading for comprehension is a skill worth cultivating. However, to read something for comprehension, you have to actually read it. Try again with my quote above, paying special attention to the bolded part. You seem to have missed it the first time around.
But thanks for making my point for me yet again.
I like “yet again” it’s so much better than “again”–it’s just, I don’t know, nicely pompous.
Anyhow, since you took the trouble to post a line in which I left out a word and then made fun of it, I took your point to be that you thought that line made no sense, and it was worth the pixels to point it out. Yes, you at the end indicated that you realized what I meant (due to your extremely impressive “reading comprehension”). I nevertheless charitably ignored that, because if I considered it, there would have been no point whatever to your post. But as my interpretation bothers you, I’ll go with the one you prefer instead. You were bored and so posted something with no point at all. Got it.
BruceS,
I don’t agree with that Rosenberg paragraph at all. I’m more sympathetic with the Horwich, but (Gregory–who thinks everybody who studies philosophy must have a theory about everything–notwithstanding) I don’t have any theories about numbers or modal properties handy. Lots of things (even besides can openers) are mysterious to me. Sometimes I’m even befuddled. And unlike several others around here, I think some of these questions are very hard–certainly too hard for the likes of me. If I’d spent my life studying them (which I haven’t) I’m sure I’d still not get to the bottom of a lot of them. And I recognize that I’m unlikely to fathom more than a couple of them in my dotage.
But I’m pretty sure Rosenberg is wrong in that paragraph.
To be distinguished from a Free Floating Full Torso Vaporous Apparition.
http://content7.flixster.com/question/56/51/65/5651657_std.jpg
Exactly, and just about as (un)likely to exist, as far as I can see.
walto,
I chose it to emphasize the developing pattern. You often make my points for me, sometimes (as above) in the very same comment in which you’re trying to rebut them!
Your error was worth highlighting because it’s a great example with which to make my point about the meaning of the phrase “makes sense”: That phrase has more than one meaning, and your statement shows that. On one level your mistaken phrase — “it doesn’t sense” — doesn’t make sense, but on another level it does, and we can infer your meaning despite the omitted word “make”.
Likewise, my original statement makes perfect sense when read for comprehension:
Your complaint rests entirely on the mistaken assumption that “makes sense” can only mean “is intelligible”. Don’t pull a Gregory — he’s doing exactly the same thing with respect to the word “natural”.
walto:
Sure you have. You even agreed with me that KN’s criticisms don’t pose a problem for naturalism.
Yes, and in one case you found a real error. I acknowledged it, and we moved on. See how easy that is?
When I’m wrong, I acknowledge it and move on. However, I won’t pretend to be wrong just to placate you. If you think you’ve spotted an error, then tell us what it is. If I agree, I’ll say so. If I disagree, I’ll say so and explain exactly why — as I have in this thread.
Counterarguments are welcome, though you appear to prefer sniping.
Also, you seem upset at the idea that a mere engineer might presume to challenge the great Plantinga:
If I’m being presumptuous in challenging Plantinga, then you should be able to spot the errors in my argument and explain them to us. You don’t seem able to do that.
Have you considered the possibility that my criticism of Plantinga is valid?
keiths,
I’m guessing there’s no point in saying this again but something can make sense whether or not it can “be established” –which I take to mean confirmed. My “counterargument” was that you and everybody else actually understands the statement in question, whether or not it can be confirmed. I’ve pointed this out about eight times already. You can either understand this and agree, you can understand it and not agree (as early Carnap might have) or you cannot understand it. I infer from your repetitious non-responses, that you simply can’t understand it. There is another possibility, I suppose, that you’re just being an asshole, but I haven’t suggested that one.
My comments on your Plantinga remarks are all on that thread. You said some stuff that I thought was right, and I acknowledged it. You also said some stuff I thought was wrong. You puffed about one group, and pulled the same sort of stuff your doing here about the other. I agree that you did once admit an error on that thread, something which is obviously contrary to your M.O., so Mazel tov–and that was a good thing. As you like praise obviously, let me blow you one more kiss. The thing is, you also made a ton of mistakes there. That’s not terrible–you hadn’t even heard of these issues the day before. But you’re cockiness is absurd and unflattering, and, whether I can get you to believe this or not, you really don’t understand modal logic better than Plantinga. I know you want to “win” every “debate” but there are regresses and there is also regressive behavior.
As I’ve said before, I think you’re a bright guy, and you’re certainly industrious, but you probably spend too much time trying arguing with cuckoos for your own good. And I have no more interest in convincing you of anything than William does. That is one of the reasons you don’t get as many “counterarguments” as you might like. Nobody but you and a few of the God nuts give enough of a shit about this stuff to spend much time on it.
I think most of us came here from what I’ve come to call the crevo wars.
When dealing with settled science, one side is right and one side is wrong. For the most part.
In most other kinds of discussion — be it religion, politics, art, music, etc — it is more sensible to try to figure out what the other person is saying than to win.
walto,
That’s already been addressed.
Says the guy who had time to engage in yesterday’s “constructive” dialogue with Gregory, but somehow lacks the time to point out even one error in my argument against Plantinga, though he claims there are “tons” of them.
petrushka,
Right. I was just looking at an article in the Boston Globe about a dispute over whether some insurance company should pay for Sir Speedy’s business interruption caused by last year’s Marathon bombing. The issue apparently involves whether or not the bombing was an act of terrorism. Naturally, Sir Speedy thinks they should get more money than they got and the insurer, Public Service Mutual, thinks that they’ve paid all they’re required to.
But the article doesn’t provide a single word of the policy language, so it’s impossible for any reader to have any idea whether more should be paid. Nevertheless, every commentor (and there are many more at the Herald) have absolutely definite opinions–not only as to whether there was coverage, but what the psychological problems are of those who disagree with them. They’re not looking to understand anything–they’re looking either to convince or simply to insult. It’s tiring.
As I’ve said before, I’m not here to win any fights or convince anybody of anything. Maybe I’ll learn something or maybe post some first draft of something. Stuff like that. Obviously, I might not agree with all these comments, and there will not always be a meeting of the minds. That’s OK. nobody should feel the need to win. I wish there were more places like that, but, clearly, most people just prefer fighting (“counterarguments”). I admire the folks, like Bruce and Alan (and a bunch of others I’ve met elsewhere) that never get drawn into these pissing contests. It’s very adult of them, and I wish I were more consistently like that.
“Says the guy who had time to engage in yesterday’s “constructive” dialogue with Gregory, but somehow lacks the time to point out even one error in my argument against Plantinga, though he claims there are “tons” of them.”
That’s exactly the kind of shit I’m talking about. There were lots of errors, I actually did point them out (which is why you’re stll seething I guess), you made changes and your posts improved some, all of that is ok, and you should grow up.
************************************
ETA: OK, you win. I had a few minutes, so I ask you to consider the following excerpts from the thread we’re both so crazy about and indicate not so much whether you actually made any errors (I think that’s obvious), but whether your remarks suggest a person that is really interested in learning something rather than just in pontificating:
You:
I have to wonder whether Plantinga actually ran the argument past any of his colleagues before going public with it.
[that’s ridiculous–the argument goes back to Descartes]
If ‘A’ is Alvin and ‘B’ is Alvin’s body, then “A could conceivably exist without B’ is true, but “B could conceivably exist without B” is not.
[confuses de dicto and de re reference]
He’s wrong. Suppose C and D are different names for the same thing. It’s entirely possible for someone to imagine something about C that he couldn’t possibly conceive of with regard to D, but that doesn’t magically force C and D to become separate things.
[confuses de dicto and de re reference]
Me:
I generally agree with what you’re getting at here, but, as you put it here, I don’t think it’s entirely fair to Plantinga. It amounts to the claim that one simply cannot make de re references to objects (I mean, anything can be renamed in such a way that the person in question doesn’t know both names.). Plantinga simply disagrees with that claim, and, obviously, his argument requires that one CAN make de re references to selves in a way that you here deny. Another way of putting this is that when you make “C” and “D” unknown by the arguer to be names of the same thing, what you’re doing is supplying opacity–i.e., making the argument de dicto. The morning star is such that John doesn’t believe it is the evening star–but that means that the evening star is also such that John doesn’t believe IT is the evening star. That’s how de re reference works.
You:
It’s not that we can’t make de re references. It’s that when Plantinga says “I can conceive of X having property P”, he is really saying “my mind can form the concept “X has property P”.
[begs the question]
We want to know whether “Barack Obama” and “the current president of the US” refer to the same person. Plantinga’s logic “tells” us they don’t…”
Me:
That part of your post isn’t right, Keith. Plantinga would insist that Obama and the current president of the U.S. are identical and that each has all and only the properties of the other. And, de re, the following are both true:
Obama is not necessarily the current president of the U.S.
The current president of the U.S. is not necessarily the current president of the U.S.
The second one looks false because you’re taking it de dicto.
Plantinga is very careful about this stuff and understands it very well. Fortunately, you don’t need to accuse him of THAT error to find fault with his argument.
You:
For Luca, it really is possible that the president of the US is white. He can say that and actually mean it, just as Plantinga means it when he says “It’s possible that I could exist when my body doesn’t”. They both believe what they say.
Me:
Re: ” For Luca, it really is possible that the president of the US is white.”
That’s what’s known as “epistemic possibility.” Another way of putting that is by saying “For all Luca knows, the president of the U.S. is white” which is neither an expression of possibility de dicto OR de re. It’s not really a statement about metaphysical possibility at all, but a remark about an actuality that somebody might be wrong about. There doesn’t need to be a possible world in which Obama is white for Luca to have such a belief. Kripke doesn’t suggest that nobody could disagree with him when he says that (de re) the morning star is necessarily the evening star. It’s just that, in his view there is no possible world in which such an interlocutor would be right–whether the planet is visible in the morning, the evening, or at all.
Etc. etc. etc.
********************
You made some errors. Live with it. I still agree with you that Plantinga’s argument is no good, and think both that you made a number of good points and that as the thread went on you began to understand some of the modal and linguistic issues that surround this argument. But are you always right (or even always except regarding Snoopy?) No. And is Plantinga an idiot? No.
TSZ is supposed to be a venue for the discussion of contentious issues.
You think someone’s argument is wrong? Great — let’s discuss it. Show us the mistake, identify a logical fallacy, provide a counterexample, modify the argument to eliminate the flaw.
You think someone hasn’t addressed your argument? Great — let’s discuss it. Point out the part that they have failed to address, and explain why you think it hasn’t been addressed.
Someone challenges a statement of yours? Great — let’s discuss it. Defend it if you think it’s right, give reasons, explain why your challenger’s argument falls short — or, if the challenger is right, acknowledge that. Own your errors.
What isn’t helpful is when people refuse to take responsibility for what they say.
For example:
“I think you’re wrong about Plantinga.”
“Really? How?”
“There are tons of mistakes.”
“For example?”
“The whole thing is confused.”
“Here’s my argument. Can you point out a flaw?”
“Who are you to challenge Alvin Plantinga?”
“What, specifically, is wrong with my argument?”
“I’ve already pointed out lots of flaws.”
“For example?”
“You really spend too much time on this blog.”
…and so on.
I’ve now explained a number of your mistakes multiple times (once more in the revisions to my post above). Exactly how many times do you need to see these explanations? And how many times should I need to see your childish responses before I realize that some repetitions are wastes of time?
And, as said above, you engage in the same sort of sophomoric behavior on this thread. Not as bad as Gregory’s bullshit, but it does contribute to making this place much more annoying than it has to be, IMO.
Someone kindly reminded me that there are two important rules for discourse here as set out by Lizzie:
I will hesitate to enforce these rules but not indefinitely. Neither rule limits anyone in expressing the force of their argument. Please edit out the extraneous before pushing the post button. Thanks in advance.
walto,
Regarding your lengthy and belated ETA above (which is a very bad habit, by the way):
I responded to your points in the thread. Discussion is like a tennis volley — you’re supposed to hit the ball back when it comes onto your side of the court.
I ended up presenting a capsule summary of my argument, in which I show that Plantinga’s argument is logically equivalent to an obviously flawed argument about President Obama.
Regarding that summary, I wrote:
That was when I started getting vague answers from you like
And:
Can I get a real answer to my questions instead of a brush-off?
“I responded to your points in the thread.”
Actually you often didn’t. You can look that up (I just reread the thread myself.) But anyhow I’m done with this now. If you want to believe you made no mistakes other than the introduction of your stuffed animals, feel free to do so. I disagree and I’ve said several times why. Now it’s just boring ridiculousness.
I think the moderators should introduce an “ignore” function. Been helpful on some other boards I’ve used.
walto,
That’s what I figured. I raise the issues at the very heart of the thread, and you tell me that you’re too “bored” to continue.
My remarks were not about either your “summaries” or the central blah blah. It was about your many unaknowledged errors. But I get that changing the subject is another of your favorite ploys.
And yes, this is extremely boring.
Early in Bruce’s management career:
1. Receive irritating email (*)
2. Compose angry reply.
3. Press send.
4. Go for walk around halls to cool off.
Later in Bruce’s management career:
1. Receive irritating email.
2. Compose angry reply.
3. Go for long walk around halls to cool off.
4. Press cancel (and phone author of irritating email).
It is all in the timing.
——————-
(*) No internet or global email early in my career, but we did have inter-corporate electronic mail.
That sounds familiar, except that I would have to replace or remove the word “management”.
I figure that KN, Gregory and keiths are still in the early career phase.
BruceS,
Thanks. Maybe some day I’ll learn…..
My wife can see my hackles rise from several rooms away. I get pissed just watching the kind of movie that is designed to get you pissed. Never mind the news.
She does not understand that someone can have their buttons pushed, stomp around for a few minutes, and have it pass without doing anything regrettable.
I’ve obviously got to either get into the long walks Bruce takes or the short stomps that work for you.
What pushes my buttons is when people don’t take responsibility for what they’ve said — for example, when they make a claim, and then pretend later that they didn’t, rather than admitting error; or when they make a vague accusation, but then fail to back it up with specifics; or when they claim that an argument is wrong, but won’t explain what is supposedly wrong with it. It’s both dishonest and cowardly.
When someone does that sort of thing, it’s fun to call his bluff.
Being wrong, on the other hand, doesn’t faze me at all. I work in a profession (computer design) in which being wrong is an hourly occurrence and in which the majority of one’s time is spent fixing one’s mistakes — far more time than is spent doing the designs in the first place. We take it for granted that we’ll make mistakes, and debugging is not a dreaded exception, but rather a routine and expected part of the work flow.
All this practice at being wrong makes me pretty fearless when it comes to making mistakes, which is why I didn’t hesitate to challenge the Great Plantinga despite being a ‘de re’ and ‘de dicto’ newbie. I had thought things through carefully, and my argument made sense. What was the worst that could happen? I could be wrong, which would be only mildly embarrassing, and then I’d learn something. Not exactly a terrifying scenario.
As it happens, no one has been able to refute my argument. My chutzpah seems to have been warranted, unless walto surprises everyone by coming up with a refutation.
walto,
I see. So you’re not too bored to say this…
…but when the time comes to back up your statement, then you suddenly become bored. That’s awfully convenient.
Do it for the sake of the onlookers, walto. You’ve already determined that my argument is wrong, which means you’ve spotted a flaw in it. You just need to put it into words, that’s all. Teach the upstart engineer a lesson — show him that no rookie ever catches the Great Plantinga in a de re/de dicto error.
For your convenience, here’s the argument again, and here’s where I explain the flaw in terms of de re, de dicto and Leibniz’s Law:
I think the onlookers have mostly moved on by now.
Alan Fox,
That may be because the walto-keiths kindergarten argument quite obviously belongs in another thread. Many posts here are off-topic.
KN’s departure-thread contradiction that “naturalism cannot be right” while claimed by a self-professed ‘naturalist’ remains a challenge.
Given that a vast majority of the small number of active posters at TSZ are (whether by declaration or demonstration) themselves ‘naturalists,’ it is rather obvious why KN’s “Critique of Naturalism” found little serious or significant nourishment here at TSZ. walto even teaches philosophy somewhere in the USA and yet isn’t familiar with what ‘naturalism’ means as an ideology that most (atheist & agnostic) philosophers in his home country embrace!
p.s. just found a helpful statement on ‘naturalism’ by Charles Taylor, but he’s an Abrahamic theist, so therefore *cannot* be trusted or acknowledged by ‘sceptics’ (atheists & agnostics) at TSZ; it’s likely the disenchanted, eclectic fuzziness of KN’s philosophistic worldview that both endeared him to people at TSZ and at the same time was his undoing. I do wish him healing from such a self-defeating, spiritually empty condition.
But where is the fun is studying something easy?
As best as I can tell, by naturalism in this post, KN was NOT attempting to rebut physicalism.
Rather KN claimed that justification of beliefs required norms and that such norms could be not expressed completely using only the language of science. KN took naturalism to mean “expressed in the language of science”, I think. But even if they are not expressible as scientific theories due to the is/ought gap, the norms still supervene on physical facts. They do not required ghosts (hence the reference to anti-supernaturalism in KN’s OP).
To understand what KN is saying, I’ve found the IEP article on Naturalized Epistemology helpful. Kim’s What is Naturalized Epistemology is a very clearly written discussion of some core issues, although mainly about debunking Quine’s extreme approach (which was to forget epistemology and just do psychology).
I’m part way through Kitcher’s long survey The Naturalists Return which I read (so far) as attempting a naturalistic approach based partly on understanding and evaluating the causal processes which best satisfy the human goal of gaining reliable knowledge.
I’m not sure where I found it (possibly KN suggested it), but O’Sheas’s review of Sellars, Brandom, and Millikan touches on a lot of points KN makes, eg animal representations versus human language-based representations and whether Millikan’s teleosemantic approach or a norm-based approach are best to understand human language and representation.
Lastly, as Kitcher’s paper points out, philosophy of science is partly specialized epistemology, so (put crudely for effect) I read KN as saying that science itself cannot be naturalized.
Which seems odd but that does not make it wrong.
Gregory,
Gregory, what is Taylor’s definition? I’m happy to accept his statement as definitive for our purposes and then tell you whether It’s a view that seems true to me. I point out, though, that if you think people might not like this or that statement (Taylor’s), it might suggest to you not only why it’s nice to have a common one to use but also why it doesn’t really mean much if 75% of some group of poll respondents were willing to say whether they are naturalists. If the poll had provided a definition–Taylor’s or anybody else’s, I’d have tried to respond. (It’s also telling that the two paragraphs, by Horwich and Rosenberg, are wildly different.)
Bruce, if “naturalism” is taken to mean something like will at some point be entirely expressible as a statement of physics, then I’m not a naturalist. Just think of how badly Trollope novels would fare!
BTW, Kim was visiting at Brown when I was there, and we both sat in one of the same Chisholm seminars (me for credit, him not). He was pretty young then, and I don’t remember him saying much, but he liked to wear turtlenecks and pull the fronts up over his mouth. (Maybe that’s another habit I should be working on.)
BTW, not sure why the time stamps are so off on these posts (which may be why there’s no edit possibility on the last one I made–roughly 15 minutes ago).
They are in British time, which is probably a daylight savings time at present.
The post to which I am replying shows as 1:07 pm. On my RSS reader, it shows as 7:07 am. The RSS reader is using US Central time, so that 7:07 am would translate to 1207 in UTC (or GMT).
As to why you could not edit — that I do not know. Perhaps the changes that Alan made have an unwanted side effect.