Purpose, design and physical relativity

Philosophy of Science 3 (3):267-285 (1936)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In a recent issue of Philosophy of Science Merrit H. Moore contends that it is not only possible but methodologically desirable to separate design in nature from purpose. The main part of his argument is devoted to a support of the proposition that “design” is objective, by which he means that design in the physical world is independent of mind. That which gives interest to Mr. Moore's argument is essentially the Kantian doctrine that the forms of the understanding, and consequently of knowledge, are furnished by the mind and are, in a sense, imposed upon sense-experience thereby making them rational. In contrast to the Kantian view stands the Humean doctrine that knowledge is analyzable into and limited by sense-impressions.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,197

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

What, if anything, are colours relative to?John Hyman - 2005 - Philosophy 80 (4):475-494.
The theory of relativity.R. K. Pathria - 1963 - Delhi,: Hindustan.
Toward Relativization of Psychophysical "Relativity".Steven M. Rosen - 1976 - Perceptual and Motor Skills 42:843-850.
Learning to design systems.Gary Metcalf - 2003 - World Futures 59 (1):21 – 36.
Relativity.Albert Einstein - 1920 - London,: Methuen. Edited by Robert W. Lawson.
Is General Relativity Generally Relativistic?Roger Jones - 1980 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:363 - 381.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
13 (#1,040,625)

6 months
5 (#647,370)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references