Abstract
AbstractIn this paper I defend the claim that Paul Feyerabend held a robust metaphilosophical position for most of his philosophical career. This position I call Decision-Based Epistemology and reconstruct it in terms of three key components: (1) a form of epistemic voluntarism concerning the justification of philosophical positions and (2) a behaviorist account of philosophical beliefs, which allows him (3) to cast normative arguments concerning philosophical beliefs in scientific methodology, such as realism, in terms of means-ends relations. I then introduce non-naturalist and naturalist variants of his conception of normativity, which I trace back to his mentors Viktor Kraft and Karl Popper, respectively. This distinction, introduced on the metaphilosophical level, can can be put to use to explain key changes in Feyerabend’s philosophical proposals, such as the viability of his methodological argument for realism. I conclude that this Decision-Based Epistemology should be further explored by historically embedding Feyerabend’s metaphilosophy in a voluntarist tradition of scientific philosophy.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Philosophy
Reference77 articles.
1. Brown, M. J. (2016). The abundant world: Paul Feyerabend’s metaphysics of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 57, 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.11.015.
2. Carus, A. W. (2007). Carnap and twentieth-century thought: Explication as enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Chakravartty, A. (2017). Scientific ontology: Integrating naturalized metaphysics and voluntarist epistemology (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Chignell, A. (2018). The ethics of belief. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/ethics-belief.
5. Collodel, M. (2016). Was Feyerabend a Popperian? Methodological issues in the history of the philosophy of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57, 27–56.
Cited by
2 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