Posted: Apr 27, 2013 3:43 pm
by Teuton
DrWho wrote:That's a nice quote, but it still doesn't change the fact that it is not particularly informative in the modern parlance.

"Most versions of naturalism can be distinguished from one another by their answers to questions like the following:

Is naturalism an epistemological claim about how we know or an ontological claim about what exists (or both or neither)?

By scientific, are we talking about science as a method or science as a set of results or findings, or both?

Is science only the non-human sciences or does it include the social and behavioural sciences as well?

Is a priori knowledge about objective reality possible?

What is the status of conceptual analysis and intuitions?

What is the relation between philosophy (in our case, metaphysics) and science? More specifically, is philosophy constrained in any way by science and, if so, what does the constraint consist in?

The answers to some of these different questions are at least to some extent logically independent, so different subsets of them may get different answers. As a result, numerous different naturalisms emerge of quite varying logical strength, thus explaining why so many doubt that there is a meaningful doctrine to be affirmed or denied. However, the existence of many different possible formulations need not entail that no specific formulation is coherent and interesting."

(Kincaid, Harold. "Introduction: Pursuing a Naturalist Metaphysics." In Scientific Metaphysics, edited by Don Ross, James Ladyman, and Harold Kincaid, 1-26. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 2)