This paper offers a detailed criticism of different versions of modal scepticism proposed by Van Inwagen and Hawke, and, against these views, attempts to vindicate our reliance on thought experiments in philosophy. More than one different meaning of “ modal scepticism” will be distinguished. Focusing mainly on Hawke’s more detailed view I argue that none of these versions of modal scepticism is compelling, since sceptical conclusions depend on an untenable and, perhaps, incoherent modal epistemology. With a detailed account of modal (...) defeaters at hand I argue that Van Inwagen and Hawke’s scepticism is either groundless, or it leads to boundless and unacceptable modal scepticism. Additionally, I show that Hawke’s conception of analogical modal reasoning is problematic. Either his principle of similarity is arbitrary or it begs the question about modal scepticism. In contrast to Hawke’s restricted view of analogical modal reasoning, I present two examples of analogy-based modal justification of philosophically relevant possibility claims. My criticism of modal scepticism also shows that there is no good reason to insist on a sharp distinction between an unproblematic and a presumably dubious kind of modality. The upshot is that in absence of proper defeaters both Yablo-style conceivability and properly applied analogical reasoning are reliable guides to possibility, and also that modal justification comes in degrees. The proposed framework of defeaters of modal justification as well as the analysed examples of analogical modal reasoning trace out interesting new areas for further discussions. (shrink)

This paper critically examines David Berman's theological lying interpretation of Hume and identifies two types of theological lying: the denial of atheism strategy and the pious Christian strategy. It is argued that neither reading successfully establishes an atheist interpretation of Hume. Moreover, circumstantial evidence shows that Hume's position was different from that of the atheists of his time. Attributions theological lying to Hume, therefore, are unwarranted and should be rejected, even if we grant that this literary technique was used in (...) the early-modern era. Analysing other non-theistic readings of Hume is beyond the scope of this paper. However, given that Berman presents one of most elaborated atheist reinterpretations of Hume's affirmative theistic passages, the failure of Berman's analysis shows that rejecting these passages should not be the default interpretive approach, and it is reasonable to attribute to Hume a weak, indeterminate theism. (shrink)

This article introduces Metaphilosophy's special issue on metatheories of disagreement, with the aim of promoting discussion on the nature of disagreement on a metatheoretical level. The contributions to this issue cover the following key topics related to disagreement: faultless disagreement, metaontological disagreement, metalinguistic disagreement, responses to peer disagreement in philosophy, hinge epistemology and deep disagreement, disagreement asymmetry, factual and nonfactual disagreement, and defining disagreement or verbal dispute. This introduction also provides general background on four major topics in order to contextualize (...) the contributions to the special issue: first, the problem of characterizing the subject matter of disagreements; second, the most prominent accounts of deep disagreement, disagreement asymmetry and hinges; third, the notion of faultless disagreement; and finally, the problem of offering different approaches on what disagreements are. (shrink)

This volume includes selected essays by invited contributors on the social philosophy and the philosophy of science of the Hungarian-British polymath Michael Polanyi. These essays cover topics in Polanyi’s social-political philosophy, as well as social themes in his epistemology and philosophy of science. Additionally, some essays focus on Polanyian themes in contemporary philosophy (including epistemology, philosophy of science, and science policy).

Empirical examinations about cross-cultural variability of intuitions, the well-known publication of Stich and his colleagues criticiz-ing thought-experiments and intuitions in philosophical debates, is still a challenge that faces analytical philosophers, as any systematic investigation of the methodology of philosophy must give answers to these basic questions: What is intuition? What role should intuitions play in philosophy? I present and examine the sceptical argument of experimental philosophers, and claim that experimental philosophers misunderstand the role of evidence in philosophy. My argument will (...) utilize Goldman’s view, according to which intuitions give reliable evidence about a person’s concepts, and this knowledge is valuable for further philosophical research as well. I will argue that the sceptical conclusions of experimental philosophers are harmless against this conception of philosophy, because even from a naturalist perspective certain kind of intuitive judgments about our concepts can be warranted, and this grants the specific epistemic status of intuitions. Of course, the reliability of introspection can be challenged. However, denying self-knowledge about my internal mental states is disputable – as I will show – both from a philosophical and a scientific point of view. (shrink)

U ovome radu istražujem Polanyijeve glavne argumente za akademsku slobodu. Akademska i politička sloboda međusobno su blisko povezane: ako država preuzme kontrolu nad znanošću, to dovodi do kolapsa same slobode u cijelome društvu. Njegovi argumenti protiv totalitarizma oslanjaju se na njegovu anti-pozitivističku filozofiju znanosti. On definira totalitarizam kao poricanje akademske slobode koje se temelji na pragmatičkom poimanju znanosti i instrumentalističkim interpretacijama moralnih vrijednosti. Polanyijeva ideja znanosti je duhovni, idealistički opis zajednice slobodnih intelektualaca koji su strastveno posvećeni potrazi za istinom i (...) imaju autonomnu zajednicu s vlastitim pravilima i autonomnim upravljanjem. Potraga za istinom radi nje same je bitan cilj znanosti, koji se može postići jedino ako znanost ostane slobodna od političkih, ideoloških i ekonomskih utejcaja. Tvrdim da Polanyijevi uvidi mogu biti relevantni i danas, kada znanost može postati instrument profitno orijentiranih praktičnih potreba umjesto potrage za istinom samom i kada se humanistika često smatra nepotrebnom.In the present essay I investigate Polanyi’s main arguments for academic freedom. Academic and political freedom are closely related to each other: if state takes control over science, it will lead to the collapse of freedom itself in the whole society. His arguments against totalitarianism rely on his anti-positivist philosophy of science. He diagnoses totalitarianism as a denial of academic freedom which is based on a pragmatist view of science and instrumentalist interpretation of moral values. Polanyi’s idea of science is a spiritual, idealistic description of a community of free intellectuals who are passionately committed to seeking the truth and have an autonomous community with its own rules and autonomous direction. Seeking the truth for its own sake is the essential goal of science, which can be accomplished only if it remains free from political, ideological and economical influences. I will argue that Polanyi’s insights can still be relevant today, when science can become an instrument of profit-oriented practical needs instead of seeking the truth itself, and the humanities are often considered unnecessary.Dans cet essai, j’examine les principaux arguments de Polany pour la liberté académique. La liberté académique et politique sont étroitement liées : si l’Etat prend le contrôle de la science, cela conduira à l’effondrement de la liberté elle-même dans toute la société. Ses arguments contre le totalitarisme reposent sur sa philosophie anti-positiviste de la science. Il diagnostique le totalitarisme comme un refus de la liberté académique fondé sur une conception pragmatique de la science et une interprétation instrumentaliste des valeurs morales. L’idée de la science de Polany est une description spirituelle, idéaliste, d’une communauté d’intellectuels libres, passionnément dédiés à la recherche de la vérité, et qui ont une communauté avec ses propres règles et une direction autonome. La recherche de la vérité pour elle-même est l’objectif essentiel de la science, ce qui peut être accompli uniquement si elle demeure libre des influences politiques, idéologiques et économiques. J’affirme que les visions de Polany peuvent toujours être pertinentes aujourd’hui, alors que la science peut devenir un instrument des besoins pratiques orientés vers le profit au lieu de chercher la vérité elle-même, et alors que les sciences humaines sont souvent considérées comme inutiles.Im präsenten Artikel gehe ich Polanyis Hauptargumentation für akademische Freiheit auf den Grund. Die akademische und politische Freiheit sind miteinander nahe verwandt: Unterzieht der Staat die Wissenschaft seiner Kontrolle, endet dies im Kollaps der Freiheit selbst in der gesamten Gesellschaft. Polanyis Begründung gegen den Totalitarismus stützt sich auf dessen antipositivistische Philosophie der Wissenschaft. Er diagnostiziert den Totalitarismus als Versagung der akademischen Freiheit, die auf dem pragmatischen Blickpunkt der Wissenschaft als auch der instrumentalistischen Interpretation der Moralwerte basiert. Polanyis Wissenschaftsvorstellung ist eine spirituelle, idealistische Schilderung einer Gemeinschaft freier Intellektueller, die sich der Suche nach Wahrheit glutvoll gewogen zeigt und über eine autonome Community mit eigenen Regeln sowie autonomer Verwaltung verfügt. Die Erkundung der Wahrheit um ihrer selbst willen repräsentiert das essenzielle Vorhaben der Wissenschaft, welches sich allein unter Bewahrung ihrer Independenz von politischen, ideologischen bzw. wirtschaftlichen Einflüssen zuwege bringen lässt. Ich halte dafür, Polanyis Einblicke hätten auch heutzutage Relevanzpotenzial, zu der Zeit, wenn sich die Wissenschaft auf ein Werkzeug des profitorientierten praktischen Begehrens reduzieren könnte, anstatt nach der Wahrheit selbst zu fahnden, und die Geisteswissenschaften gehäuft als entbehrlich abgestempelt werden. (shrink)

The book is arguably the first comprehensive collection of essays on Michael Polanyi’s social, political philosophy. The essays combine philosophical and historical approaches to show Polanyi’s social thought in the context of his epistemology and philosophy of science as well as the 20th century intellectual history. This volume appeals to specialists in Michael Polanyi’s philosophy, political philosophers who are interested in the 20th century political thought, mainly conservative-liberal political tradition. Furthermore it appeals to scholars focusing on the intersections between epistemology (...) and political philosophy. (shrink)