Michael Lynch and Alan Sokal enagage in a most civil dialogue: Defending Science: An Exchange. Readers might also be interested in Susan Haack’s Defending Science-Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism and James Robert Brown’s Who Rules in Science?: An Opinionated Guide to the Wars – two cracking reads – and both past contributors to EPISTEME.
March 12, 2012 0 Comments Short URL Alan Sokal, Christian fundamentalism, Christianity, David Hume, Epistemology, God, MICHAEL LYNCH, Reason culture wars, episteme, epistemology, James Robert Brown, social constructivism, social epistemology, sokal hoax, SUSAN HAACK
I had the great pleasure of listening to Susan Haack today. Her talk was entitled “Epistemology: Who Needs It?” (see the abstract below). She was wonderfully lucid and engaging without ever coming over as dry or pompous nor losing her stance as a “passionate and unfashionable moderate.” She would be the perfect ambassador for the public understanding of science. Susan must rate as one of the greatest female philosophers around whose expertise ranges from the highly technical to the very accessible. To her credit she has never portrayed herself in clichéd “I’m a female philosopher therefore I’m a feminist philosopher” terms. Her intellectual honesty and openness is beyond reproach. Susan is also a most generous person. She kindly agreed to participate in the first issue of EPISTEME that I edited. Not only that, she hopped off a plane in London for the launch of EPISTEME from China feeling like crap and being the trooper that she is, delivered her paper without any indication of her discomfort. She also participated in the EPISTEME Dartmouth conference three years ago – see her paper here. My favourite book of hers is admittedly not her best one – but it somehow captures her – Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate. Her best and most challenging book is Evidence and Inquiry.
Epistemology: Who Needs It?
This reflection on the real-world relevance of epistemological ideas begins with the thought that all of us—when we wonder what to make of newspaper reports of supposed medical breakthroughs, of failures of military intelligence, etc., etc.— call, implicitly or explicitly, on epistemology; and shows how an understanding of, e.g., the differences between genuine inquiry and advocacy research, the nature of wishful and fearful thinking, and the material character of the relevance and its bearing on what relevant evidence we may be missing, can illuminate the ways in which inquiry can go wrong and evidence can mislead us.
A reminder that the bumper issue of EPISTEME is available for free download. See the first paragraph below which discusses the lacuna this issue fills.
WALTER SINNOTT-ARMSTRONG AND FREDERICK SCHAUER
Epistemology and the philosophy of law are both thriving, but it is unfortunate that there is so little interaction between the two. Few books on epistemology deal with legal evidence, and few books on the legal system’s approach to evidence even recognize the sphere of philosophical epistemology. Law is not listed in the index to the admirable Blackwell Companion to Epistemology, and its entry on evidence moves on quickly after distinguishing what epistemologists and lawyers mean by evidence. The Oxford Handbook on Epistemology also has no index entry on law and only one short discussion of how psychology has affected evidence law. Perhaps more surprisingly, the Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law has 1,050 pages with no article or even entry in its index on evidence and only two pages that refer to epistemology. The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory does have one short article on evidence, but only one mention of epistemology or evidence outside of that article.
October 30, 2009 Comments Off Short URL ADINA ROSKIES, ALEX STEIN, AMALIA AMAYA, DALE NANCE, EDWARD STEIN, episteme, epistemology, evidence, evidence and law, FREDERICK SCHAUER, JENNIFER MNOOKIN, KAREN PETROSKI, LARRY LAUDAN, MICHAEL SAKS, RONALD ALLEN, social epistemology, SUSAN HAACK, WALTER SINNOTT-ARMSTRONG
The latest issue of EPISTEME is a terrific bumper issue devoted to this fascinating topic. As if that’s not news enough, it is available for free download – hurry while stocks last! As plugged by Leiter.
January 27, 2009 Comments Off Short URL ADINA ROSKIES, ALEX STEIN, alvin goldman, AMALIA AMAYA, DALE NANCE, EDWARD STEIN, EMILY MURPHY, episteme, epistemology, evidence, evidence and law, FREDERICK SCHAUER, JENNIFER MNOOKIN, KAREN PETROSKI, LARRY LAUDAN, law, MICHAEL SAKS, RONALD ALLEN, social epistemology, SUSAN HAACK, TENEILLE BROWN, WALTER SINNOTT-ARMSTRONG
- A Confederacy of Dunces – quotes and extracts – 13 May 22, 2013
- Mark Rowlands on the Extended Mind May 21, 2013
- Kripke resigns as report alleges he faked results of thought experiments May 20, 2013
- Social relationships and groups: New insights on embodied and distributed cognition May 19, 2013
- Oakeshott on Science as a Mode of Experience May 17, 2013
- A Confederacy of Dunces – quotes and extracts – 12 May 16, 2013
- Stigmergy and emergent behaviour May 15, 2013
- The socially extended mind May 14, 2013
- Consciousness and the social mind May 13, 2013
- Science of Swarms May 12, 2013
- Jazz as conversation May 11, 2013
- Oakeshott on the Character of Religious Experience: Need There be a Conflict Between Science and Religion? May 11, 2013
- The Dynamically Extended Mind – A Minimal Modeling Case Study May 10, 2013
- A Confederacy of Dunces – quotes and extracts – 11 May 9, 2013
- Hayek May 8, 2013