Good science, bad philosophy

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (6):791-792 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Behrendt's & Young's (B&Y's) persuasive scientific theory explains hallucinations, and is supported by a wide variety of psychological evidence, both normal and abnormal – unlike their philosophical thesis, Kantian idealism. I argue that the evidence cited by the authors in support of idealism actually favors realism. Fortunately, their scientific theory is separable from their philosophy, and is methodologically consistent with realism.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,440

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

Are realism and instrumentalism methodologically indifferent?Robin Findlay Hendry - 2001 - Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S25-.
The Hunt for Scientific Reason.Mary Hesse - 1980 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:3 - 22.
Methodological Norms in Traditional and Feminist Philosophy of Science.Elizabeth Potter - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:101 - 108.
Unification and Scientific Realism Revisited.Malcolm R. Forster - 1986 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:394 - 405.
Good for and good about.Jenny Teichman - 2003 - Philosophy 78 (1):115-121.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
34 (#461,374)

6 months
5 (#633,186)

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