Empiricism, stances, and the problem of voluntarism

Synthese

Volumn 178, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 27-36

  Baumann, Peter ^a  

^a SWARTHMORE COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Bas van Fraassen; Empirical stance; Empiricism; Epistemic voluntarism

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650210788     PISSN: 00397857     EISSN: 15730964     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11229-009-9519-7     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Baumann, P. (2008). Belief Voluntarism and Stances, Ms.
2. Bueno O. (2003) Review of van Fraassen 2002. Metascience 12: 360-363.
3. Chakravartty A. (2004) Review of van Fraassen 2002. Studies in the history and philosophy of science Part A 35(1): 173-184.
4. Chakravartty A. (2007) Six degrees of speculation: Metaphysics in empirical contexts. In: Monton B. (eds) Images of empiricism: Essays on science and stances, with a reply from Bas van Fraassen. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 183-208.
5. Clarke M. C. (1986) Doxastic voluntarism and forced belief. Philosophical Studies 50: 39-51.
6. Cruse P. (2007) van Fraassen on the nature of empiricism. Metaphilosophy 38: 489-508.
7. Feyerabend, P. K. (1981). Classical empiricism. In P. K. Feyerabend Philosophical papers, vol. 2 (Problems of empiricism) (pp. 34-51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Govier T. (1976) Belief, values, and the will. In Dialogue 15: 642-663.
9. Heil J. (1983) Doxastic agency. Philosophical Studies 43: 355-364.
10. Helm, P. (1994). Belief policies Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Ho D. (2007) Farewell to empiricism. In: Monton B. (eds) Images of empiricism: Essays on science and stances, with a reply from Bas van Fraassen. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 319-333.
12. Holyer R. (1983) Belief and will revisited. Dialogue 22: 273-290.
13. James, W. (1963). The will to believe. In W. James (Ed.), Pragmatism and other essays. New York: Washington Square Press, 193-213.
14. Jauernig A. (2007) Must empiricism be a stance, and could it be one? How to be an empiricist and a philosopher at the same time. In: Monton B. (eds) Images of empiricism: Essays on science and stances, with a reply from Bas van Fraassen. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 271-318.
15. Kuhn T. S. (1977) Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In: Kuhn T. S. (eds) The essential tension. Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 320-339.
16. Ladyman J. (2004) Empiricism versus metaphysics. Philosophical Studies 121: 133-146.
17. Lipton P. (2004) Epistemic options. Philosophical Studies 121: 147-158.
18. Millgram E. (2006) Review of van Fraassen 2002. The Philosophical Review 115: 404-408.
19. Mohler C. (2007) The dilemma of empiricist belief. In: Monton B. (eds) Images of empiricism: Essays on science and stances, with a reply from Bas van Fraassen. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 209-228.
20. Moore, G. E. (1952). A reply to my critics. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), The philosophy of G. E. Moore (2nd ed., pp. 533-677). New York: Tudor.
21. Muders, S. (2006). Empiricism without metaphysics? In A. Berg-Hildebrand & C. Suhm (Eds.), Bas C. van Fraassen: The fortunes of empiricism (pp. 113-124). Frankfurt etc.: ontos.
22. Naylor M. B. (1985) Voluntary belief. In Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 45: 427-436.
23. Riggs W. D. (2003) Balancing our epistemic goals. Noûs 37: 342-352.
24. Rowbottom D. P. (2005) The empirical stance vs. the critical attitude. South African Journal of Philosophy 24: 200-223.
25. Stich S. P. (1990) The fragmentation of reason. MIT Press, Cambridge/MA.
26. Teller P. (2004) What is a stance?. Philosophical Studies 121: 159-170.
27. van Fraassen B. C. (1984) Belief and the will. Journal of Philosophy 81: 235-256.
28. van Fraassen B. C. (1989) Laws and symmetry. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
29. van Fraassen B. C. (1994) Against transcendental empiricism. In: Stapleton T. J. (eds) The question of hermeneutics. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 309-335.
30. van Fraassen B. C. (1995) Against naturalized epistemology. In: Leonardi P., Santambrogio M. (eds) On Quine. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 68-88.
31. van Fraassen B. C. (1997) Sola experientia? Feyerabend's refutation of classical empiricism. Philosophy of Science 64: 385-395.
32. van Fraassen B. C. (2000) The false hopes of traditional epistemology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60: 253-280.
33. van Fraassen B. C. (2002) The empirical stance. Yale University Press, New Haven & London.
34. van Fraassen B. C. (2004a) Précis of The empirical stance. Philosophical Studies 121: 127-132.
35. van Fraassen B. C. (2004b) Replies to discussion on The empirical stance. Philosophical Studies 121: 171-192.
36. van Fraassen, B. C. (2004c). Reply to Chakravarrty, Jauernig, and McMullin (from APA pacific division 2004 symposium), Ms.
37. van Fraassen, B. C. (2006). Replies. In A. Berg-Hildebrand & C. Suhm (Eds.), Bas C. van Fraassen: The fortunes of empiricism (pp. 125-171). Frankfurt etc.: ontos.
38. van Fraassen B. C. (2007) Reply: From a view of science to a new empricism. In: Monton B. (eds) Images of empiricism: Essays on science and stances, with a reply from Bas van Fraassen. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 337-383.