Abstract
AbstractAccording to constructive empiricists, accepting a scientific theory involves belief only that it is true of the observable world, where observability is defined in terms of what is detectable by the unaided senses. On this view, scientific instruments are machines that generate new observable data, but this data need not be interpreted as providing access to a realm of phenomena beyond what is revealed by the senses. A recent challenge to the constructive empiricist account of instruments appeals to the extended mind thesis, according to which cognitive processes are sometimes constituted not just by brain activity, but can extend into the rest of the body and the surrounding environment. If this is right, scientific instruments may, in the right circumstances, literally become part of our perceptual processes. In this article, I examine this extended perception argument, and I find that it fails for the vast majority of scientific instruments. Even if the extended mind thesis is accepted, the constructive empiricist can draw a line between observables and unobservables that makes very few concessions to the realist.
Funder
Arts and Humanities Research Council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Philosophy,Mathematics (miscellaneous)
Reference23 articles.
1. Aagaard J (2021) 4E cognition and the dogma of harmony. Philos Psychol 34(2):165–181
2. Alspector-Kelly M (2001) Seeing the unobservable: van Fraassen and the limits of experience. Synthese 140(3):331–353
3. Bradbury S (1967) The Evolution of the Microscope. Oxford, Pergamon Press
4. Churchland PM (1985) The ontological status of observables: In praise of the superempirical virtues. In: Churchland PM and Hooker CA (eds) Images of Science: Essays on Realism and Empiricism, with a Reply from Bas C. van Fraassen. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, pp 35–47
5. Clark A (2003) Natural Born Cyborgs. Oxford, Oxford University Press
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献