Philosophy Links

Philosophy Blogs and Miscellanea

“A view of knowledge that acknowledges that the sphere of knowledge is wider than the sphere of ‘science’ seems to me to be a cultural necessity if we are to arrive at a sane and human view of ourselves or of science.” Hilary Putnam, Meaning and the Moral Sciences, 5.

If nothing else, one might argue that just as verificationist theories of meaning fail because they are neither verifiable nor analytic, so the statement "All knowledge is scientific knowledge" is bound to be false if for no other reason than because it is not subject to empirical disconfirmation, nor is it analytic. (That is not to say that empirical disconfirmation is clearly the only criterion [if it is even really the best way to describe one of the criteria] of what makes something "scientific"; though something like it seems to be assumed, I take it, when we call "science" empirical.)

George Wrisley's Homepage
	Philosophy Resources Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Episteme Links American Philosophical Association Texts from the History of Analytic Philosophy Online Papers on Consciousness (Compiled by Chalmers) philosophy @ <large> Online Videos of Philosophy Lectures George Orwell “Politics and the English Language” Philosophy Blogs and Miscellanea Methods of Projection (Wittgenstein) Manyul Im's Chinese Philosophy Blog Experimental Philosophy Fragments of Consciousness (Chalmers) Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog Butterflies and Wheels University of Iowa Graduate Philosophical Society Bananas and Atheism Mr. Deity “A view of knowledge that acknowledges that the sphere of knowledge is wider than the sphere of ‘science’ seems to me to be a cultural necessity if we are to arrive at a sane and human view of ourselves or of science.” Hilary Putnam, Meaning and the Moral Sciences, 5. If nothing else, one might argue that just as verificationist theories of meaning fail because they are neither verifiable nor analytic, so the statement "All knowledge is scientific knowledge" is bound to be false if for no other reason than because it is not subject to empirical disconfirmation, nor is it analytic. (That is not to say that empirical disconfirmation is clearly the only criterion [if it is even really the best way to describe one of the criteria] of what makes something "scientific"; though something like it seems to be assumed, I take it, when we call "science" empirical.)