[cross-posted at Liberty & Power]
Philosopher John Searle has recently argued that the progress of empirical science has now made possible a “new kind of philosophy” no longer beset by the skeptical doubts that worried Descartes and Hume. I agree that philosophers needn’t be troubled by such skeptical doubts, but I don’t think the case against skepticism depends in any way on the progress of empirical science; on the contrary, we can take empirical science seriously in the first place only because we already have grounds for rejecting skepticism. See my discussion, which also touches on such topics as praxeology and socialist calculation, here.
{ 1 comment }
Dr.Long, let me remember you that John Searle claim of “new kind of philosophy” is a classic in the hystory of ideas. Generally speaking the philosopher is ALWAYS attracted by the socalled progress of empirical science vs the masturbation of the basic questions of philosophy that are always the same and the frustration of “patiner sur place” is sometime provoking mistakes like this: a NEW PHILOSOPHY based on the success of science(?). The same success of science, if any, is question of matter for epistemologist (Lakatos).Without skepticism ALSO the science cannot go ahead, imagine you the philosophy.Look at Kant difficult trial to resolve “objective” knowledge. About Descartes and Hume after beginning skepticism it’s notorious that the first one admitted that law of nature are GARANTED by God, the latter causality is a matter of habit. So, unfortunately, no NEW KIND OF PHILOSOPHY in sight, exactly as no NEW ECONOMY. Regards, Dr.Rozza,Milan.
Comments on this entry are closed.