The scientistic stance: The empirical and materialist stances reconciled

Synthese

Volumn 178, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 87-98

  Ladyman, James ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Empirical stance; Empiricism; Materialism; Materialist stance; Scientism; Scientistic stance; Stance; van Fraassen

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650206205     PISSN: 00397857     EISSN: 15730964     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11229-009-9513-0     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Brown R., Ladyman J. (2009) Physicalism, supervenience and the fundamental level. Philosophical Quarterly 59: 20-38.
2. Chalmers D. (2002) Consciousness and its place in nature. In: Chalmers D. (eds) Philosophy of mind: Classical and contemporary readings. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 247-272.
3. Hempel C. (1965) Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. Free Press., New York.
4. Kim, J.(1998) Mind in a physical world. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
5. Ladyman J. (2000) What's really wrong with constructive empiricism?: van Fraassen and the metaphysics of modality. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51: 837-856.
6. Ladyman J. (2004a) Discussion - empiricism versus metaphysics. Philosophical Studies 121: 133-145.
7. Ladyman J. (2004b) Modality and constructive empiricism: A reply to van Fraassen. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55: 755-765.
8. Ladyman J. (2005) Mathematical structuralism and the identity of indiscernibles. Analysis 65: 218-221.
9. Ladyman, J. (2007). The epistemology of constructive empiricism. In B. Monton (Ed.), van Fraassen's philosophy of science (pp. 46-61). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Ladyman J., Ross D. (2007) Every thing must go: Metaphysics naturalised. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
11. Lakatos I. (1978) The methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical papers (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
12. Lowe E. J. (2006) The four-category ontology: A metaphysical foundation for natural science. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
13. Monton B., van Fraassen B. (2003) Constructive empiricism and modal nominalism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54: 405-422.
14. Nagel J. (2000) The empiricist conception of experience. Philosophy 75: 345-376.
15. Ney, A. (forthcoming). Physicalism as an attitude. Philosophical Studies.
16. Papineau D. (2001) The rise of physicalism. In: Gillet C., Loewer B. (eds) Physicalism and its discontents. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3-37.
17. Papineau, D. (2007). Naturalism. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.
18. Rowbottom D. (2005) The empirical stance vs. the critical attitude. South African Journal of Philosophy 24: 200-223.
19. Sider T. (2007) Parthood. Philosophical Review 116: 51-91.
20. van Fraassen B. (1989) Laws and symmetry. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
21. van Fraassen B. (1991) Quantum mechanics: An empiricist view. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
22. van Fraassen B. (1994) Against transcendental empiricism. In: Stapleton T. J. (eds) The question of hermeneutics. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 309-335.
23. van Fraassen B. C. (1995) Against naturalised epistemology. In: Leonardi P., Santambrogio M. (eds) On quine: New essays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 68-88.
24. van Fraassen B. (2000) The false hopes of traditional epistemology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60: 253-280.
25. van Fraassen B. (2002) The empirical stance. Yale University Press, New Haven & London.