Greco, Daniel
The epistemology of 'just is'-statements
Teil von
  • Philosophical studies, 2015-10-01, Vol.172 (10), p.2599-2607
Ort / Verlag
Dordrecht: Springer
Links zum Volltext
JSTOR Arts & Sciences V
Agustín Rayo's The Construction of Logical Space offers an exciting and ambitious defense of a broadly Carnapian approach to metaphysics. This essay will focus on one of the main differences between Rayo's and Carnap's approaches. Carnap distinguished between analytic, a priori "meaning postulates", and empirical claims, which were both synthetic and knowable only a posteriori. Like meaning postulates, they determine the boundaries of logical space. But Rayo is skeptical that the a priori/a posteriori or analytic/synthetic distinctions can do the work Carnap wanted them to, so unlike meaning postulates, 'just is'-statements aren't assumed to be analytic or knowable a priori. This essay will concern the epistemology of 'just is'-statements in Rayo's picture. If not by a priori reflection, how can we determine which ones to accept? I'll distinguish two competing strands in Rayo's work. The less radical, Lewisian strand holds that the question of whether to accept a 'just is'-statement can be addressed in a neutral, non-question-begging way, by a kind of cost-benefit analysis. The more radical, Kuhnian strand holds that there can be no 'just is'-statement-independent, rational choice of which 'just is'-statements to accept. I argue that Rayo faces strong internal pressure to adopt the Kuhnian picture. While it is possible for Rayo to resist these Kuhnian pressures, natural strategies for doing so leave his view more similar to Carnap's than the above gloss suggested.
ISSN: 0031-8116
ISSN: 1573-0883
DOI: 10.1007/s11098-014-0424-7
Links zum Inhalt
Arts & Humanities, Epistemology, Ethics, Logical space, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Mind, Rayo

Weiterführende Literatur

Empfehlungen zum selben Thema automatisch vorgeschlagen von bX
Die Universität der Informationsgesellschaft