Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Search  
 
Author Item Excerpt Meta data
Pollock, J.
 
Books on Amazon
Method Field II 373ff
Epistemic Puzzles/Pollock/Putnam/Lewis/Field: Part 1: E.g. supposing we realize that our empirical methods in the past were not very reliable - then we also assume this for the future - so we should change - problem: method due to which we may have found out this cannot be more reliable than our present basic method - it uses itself for its investigation - wrong solution: meta method - part 2: says, that part 1 is contradictory: how can our method say, we you should not follow it? - Conclusion: 1. We cannot accept our methods as refutable - 2. We even have to do it - FieldVs: new discoveries must not be an argument against the old rule - the old rule is not the most basic, but an induction - also: It would be double-counted when the new observation would both change the initial adoption and at the same time would also count as evidence along with a new assumption - the most basic rule must be empirically irrefutable - ((s) it can only occur later).

Fie I
H. Field
Realism, Mathematics and Modality Oxford New York 1989

Fie II
H. Field
Truth and the Absence of Fact Oxford New York 2001

Fie III
H. Field
Science without numbers Princeton New Jersey 1980


> Counter arguments against Pollock
> Counter arguments in relation to Method



back to list view | > Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction
 
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-03-30