Answer: science.
"if many philosophers, remaining in a distinctive institutional niche, were to take up naturalized metaphysics as we Ladyman & Ross characterize it, they may end up doing a mix of mathematics and computer science, closely informed by discoveries from fundamental physics and motivated by target problems in the special sciences." (Don Ross: Will scientific philosophy still be philosophy? 2013)
"From our perspective, epistemology begins with a branch of cognitive science that investigates good reasoning. It includes work in psychology, statistics, machine learning, and Artificial Intelligence." (Michael A. Bishop and J. D. Trout: Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment, 2005)
Bishop and Trout of course think that epistemology should be a branch of
philosophy of science. I have never understood this part of their naturalism. If we are going to be naturalists, as I think we should, why not settle for science? Why would we need idle
philosophy of science in addition to science?
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti