Moderately naturalistic metaphysics
The present paper discusses different approaches to metaphysics and defends a specific, non-deflationary approach that nevertheless qualifies as scientifically-grounded and, consequently, as acceptable from the naturalistic viewpoint. By critically assessing some recent work on science and metaphysics, we argue that such a sophisticated form of naturalism, which preserves the autonomy of metaphysics as an a priori enterprise yet pays due attention to the indications coming from our best science, is not only workable but recommended.
KeywordsMetaphysics Naturalism Empiricism Modelling Theoretical virtues A priori A posteriori
We’d like to acknowledge the helpful feedback from Travis Dumsday, Donnchadh O’Conaill, and audiences at Helsinki, Hong Kong, Rome, Urbino and Singapore, where previous versions of this paper were presented. Tahko’s research for this paper was supported by Academy of Finland grants no. 266256 and no. 274715. Morganti’s work on the paper was supported by the Italian Ministry of University and Research FIRB grant no. F81J12000430001.
- Callender, C. (2011). Philosophy of science and metaphysics. In S. French & J. Saatsi (Eds.), The Continuum companion to the philosophy of science (pp. 33–54). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
- Dehmelt, H. (1989). Triton, ...Electron, ...Cosmon, ...: An infinite regression? In Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences USA (Vol. 86, pp. 8618–8619)Google Scholar
- Fine, K. (1994). Essence and modality. In J. E. Tomberlin (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives, 8: Logic and language (pp. 1–16). Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
- Hooker, C. A. (1987). A realistic theory of science. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
- Jackson, F. (1998). From metaphysics to ethics: A defence of conceptual analysis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Lowe, E. J. (2006). The four-category ontology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Ritchie, J. (2008). Understanding naturalism. Durham: Acumen.Google Scholar
- Roca-Royes, S. (2011). Modal knowledge and counterfactual knowledge. Logique et Analyse, 54, 537–552.Google Scholar
- Sider, T. (2011). Writing the book of the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Tahko, T. E. (2012). Counterfactuals and modal epistemology. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 86, 93–115.Google Scholar
- van Fraassen, B. (2002). The empirical stance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar