Advertisement

Axiomathes

pp 1–23 | Cite as

On Mizrahi’s Argument Against Stanford’s Instrumentalism

  • Fabio Sterpetti
Original Paper

Abstract

Mizrahi’s argument against Stanford’s challenge to scientific realism is analyzed. Mizrahi’s argument is worth of attention for at least two reasons: (1) unlike other criticisms that have been made to Stanford’s view so far, Mizrahi’s argument does not question any specific claim of Stanford’s argument, rather it puts into question the very coherence of Stanford’s position, because it argues that since Stanford’s argument rests on the problem of the unconceived alternatives, Stanford’s argument is self-defeating. Thus, if Mizrahi’s argument is effective in countering Stanford’s view, it may be able to question the validity of other philosophical positions which similarly rest on the problem of the unconceived alternatives; (2) Mizrahi’s argument against Stanford’s view is in part based on the development of a Stanford-like argument for the field of philosophy. This makes Mizrahi’s argument potentially relevant to the metaphilosophical debate. After careful examination, Mizrahi’s argument against Stanford’s instrumentalism is found wanting. Moreover, a Stanford-like argument is developed, which aims at challenging the metaphilosophical stance implied by Mizrahi’s argument against Stanford’s instrumentalism.

Keywords

Instrumentalism Kyle Stanford Metaphilosophy Moti Mizrahi Problem of the unconceived alternatives Problem of the unconceived objections Scientific realism 

References

  1. Ballantyne N (2014) Counterfactual philosophers. Philos Phenomenol Res 88(2):368–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beebee H (2018) Philosophical scepticism and the aims of philosophy. Proc Aristot Soc 118(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brennan J (2010) Scepticism about philosophy. Ratio 23(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bueno O (2015) Realism and anti-realism about science: a pyrrhonian stance. Int J Study Skept 5(2):145–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cavallo AM (2014) Two key differences between science and philosophy. Metaphilosophy 45(1):133–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chalmers DJ (2015) Why isn’t there more progress in philosophy? Philosophy 90(1):3–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daly C (2017) Persistent philosophical disagreement. Proc Aristot Soc 117(1):23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Devitt M (2011) Are unconceived alternatives a problem for scientific realism? J Gen Philos Sci 42(2):285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duhem P (1954) The aim and structure of physical theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1st Fr. Ed.: 1906) Google Scholar
  10. Elga A (2007) Reflection and disagreement. Noûs 41(3):478–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Floridi L (1994) The problem of the justification of a theory of knowledge. Part II: morphology and diagnosis. J Gen Philos Sci 25(1):17–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forber P (2008) Forever beyond our grasp? Review of P. Kyle Stanford (2006), Exceeding our grasp. Biol Philos 23(1):135–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frances B (2016) Worrisome skepticism about philosophy. Episteme 13(3):289–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fumerton R (1995) Metaepistemology and skepticism. Rowman and Littlefield, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Keller JA (2015) On knockdown arguments. Erkenntnis 80(6):1205–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klein P (2015) Skepticism. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/skepticism/. Accessed 22 Aug 2017
  17. Kripke S (1980) Naming and necessity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA)Google Scholar
  18. Laudan L (1981) A confutation of convergent realism. Philos Sci 48(1):19–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lewis DK (1983) Philosophical papers, vol 1. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Lyons TD (2013) A historically modus ponens against scientific realism: articulation, critique, and restoration. Int Stud Philos Sci 27(4):369–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Magnus PD (2006) What’s new about the new induction? Synthese 148(2):295–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Magnus PD (2010) Inductions, red herrings, and the best explanation for the mixed record of science. Br J Philos Sci 61(4):803–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mill JS (1900) A system of logic. Longmans, Green, and Co., New York (1st ed.: 1843) Google Scholar
  24. Mironov V (2013) On progress in philosophy. Metaphilosophy 44(1–2):10–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mizrahi M (2014) The problem of unconceived objections. Argumentation 28(4):425–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mizrahi M (2016) Historical inductions, unconceived alternatives, and unconceived objections. J Gen Philos Sci 47(1):59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Niiniluoto I (2015) Scientific progress. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/scientific-progress/. Accessed 22 Aug 2017
  28. Priest G (2006) What is philosophy? Philosophy 81(316):189–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rowbottom DP (2016) Extending the argument from unconceived alternatives: observations, models, predictions, explanations, methods, instruments, experiments, and values. Synthese.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1132-y Google Scholar
  30. Ruhmkorff S (2011) Some difficulties for the problem of unconceived alternatives. Philos Sci 78(5):875–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saatsi J, Psillos S, Winther RG, Stanford K (2009) Grasping at realist straws. Metascience 18(3):370–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sklar L (1981) Do unborn hypotheses have rights? Pac Philos Q 62(1):17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stanford PK (2006) Exceeding our grasp. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sterpetti F, Bertolaso M (2018) The pursuit of knowledge and the problem of the unconceived alternatives. Topoi.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-018-9551-7 Google Scholar
  35. van Fraassen BC (1980) The scientific image. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Fraassen BC (1989) Laws and symmetry. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wray KB (2016) Method and continuity in science. J Gen Philos Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-016-9338-8 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophySapienza University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations