Logos and Episteme 12 (3):311-330 (2021)

Authors
Hamed Bikaraan-Behesht
National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP)
Abstract
Methodological naturalists regard scientific method as the only effective way of acquiring knowledge. Quite the contrary, traditional analytic philosophers reject employing scientific method in philosophy as illegitimate unless it is justified by the traditional methods. One of their attacks on methodological naturalism is the objection that it is either incoherent or viciously circular: any argument that may be offered for methodological naturalism either employs a priori methods or involves a vicious circle that ensues from employing the very method that the argument is aimed to show its credentials. The charge of circularity has also been brought against the naturalistic arguments for specific scientific methods; like the inductive argument for induction and the abductive argument for the inference to the best explanation. In this paper, I respond to the charge of circularity using a meta-methodological rule that I call ‘reflexivity requirement.’ Giving two examples of philosophical works, I illustrate how the requirement has already been considered to be necessary for self-referential theories. At the end, I put forward a meta-philosophical explanation of the naturalism-traditionalism debate over the legitimate method of philosophy.
Keywords Analytic Philosophy  Contemporary Philosophy  Philosophy of Mind
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.5840/logos-episteme202112323
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 64,107
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Methodological Naturalism in Metaethics.Daniel Nolan - 2017 - In Tristram McPherson & David Plunkett (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics. Routledge. pp. 659-673.
Methodological Naturalism and its Misconceptions.Tiddy Smith - 2017 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 82 (3):321-336.
Naturalism and the Scientific Method.Michael Ruse - 2013 - In Stephen Bullivant & Michael Ruse (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. Oxford University Press. pp. 383.
Methodological Naturalism and the Truth Seeking Objection.Erkki Vesa Rope Kojonen - 2017 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 81 (3):335-355.
Naturalisms.Amanda Bryant - 2020 - Think 19 (56):35-50.
Should Methodological Naturalists Commit to Metaphysical Naturalism?Zahra Zargar, Ebrahim Azadegan & Lotfollah Nabavi - 2020 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 51 (1):185-193.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-10-18

Total views
8 ( #983,026 of 2,454,584 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #84,190 of 2,454,584 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes