Metaphysics and the Vera Causa Ideal: The Nun’s Priest’s Tale
- 574 Downloads
L.A. Paul has recently defended the methodology of metaphysics on the grounds that it is continuous with the sciences. She claims that both scientists and metaphysicians use inference to the best explanation (IBE) to choose between competing theories, and that the success of science vindicates the use of IBE in metaphysics. Specifically, the success of science shows that the theoretical virtues are truth-conducive. I challenge Paul’s claims on two grounds. First, I argue that, at least in biology, scientists adhere to the vera causa ideal, which allows the theoretical virtues to play a much more limited role in scientific reasoning than Paul requires for metaphysical reasoning. The success of biology thus does not vindicate the methodology of metaphysics. Second, I argue that, at least in many cases, the successful reliance on the theoretical virtues in scientific contexts shows only that the theoretical virtues are truth-conducive within those local contexts, and not that they are truth-conducive generally. The upshots are (1) that Paul’s defense of the methodology of metaphysics fails, and (2) that any attempt to rescue her defense must pay more careful attention to what precisely is vindicated by successful science.
KeywordsParsimony Analysis Scientific Realism Theoretical Virtue Metaphysical Theory Metaphysical Nature
The author thanks Zina Ward, David Colaço, Liam Kofi Bright, Eden McQueen, Adrian Currie, Jack Samuel and John Norton for comments on drafts and L.A. Paul for discussion.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
- Darwin, C. (1988). The works of Charles Darwin, volume 20: Variation of animals and plants under domestication, volume iI. New York, Chesham: NYU Press.Google Scholar
- Darwin, C. (2001). On the origin of species: A facsimile of the first edition. facsimile edition. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Delpino, G. G. F. (1869). On the Darwinian theory of pangenesis. Scientific Opinion, 2, 365–367. (391–393, 407–408).Google Scholar
- Gayon, J. (1998). Darwinism’s struggle for survival: Heredity and the hypothesis of natural selection. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Herschel, J. F. W. (2010). Preliminary discourse on the study of natural philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Jenkin, F. (1867). [Review of] The origin of species. The North British Review, 46 (June), 277–318. Accessed online: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=A24&viewtype=text.
- Lennox, J. G. (1991). Darwinian thought experiments: A function for just-so stories. In T. Horowitz & G. Massey (Eds.), Thought experiments in science and philosophy (pp. 223–246). Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Lewes, G. H. (1868). Mr. Darwin’s Hypotheses. Fortnightly Review, 3 (N.S.), 353-373, 611-628; Fortnightly Review, 4 (N.S.), 61-80, 492-509. Accessed online: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=A604&viewtype=text.
- Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Markosian, N. (2008). Restricted composition. In T. Sider, J. Hawthorne, & D. W. Zimmerman (Eds.), Contemporary debates in metaphysics (pp. 341–363). Oxford : Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
- Norton, J. D. (manuscript). Simplicity as a surrogate. http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/material_theory/6. Simplicity.pdf. Accessed November 8, 2016.
- Novick, A., Scholl, R. (manuscript). Presume it not: True causes in the search for the basis of heredity.Google Scholar
- Park, S. (2015). Accepting our best scientific theories. Filosofija Sociologija, 26(3), 218–227.Google Scholar
- van Fraassen, B. C. (2002). The empirical stance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar