Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This review of recent work in the philosophy of science motivated by a commitment to ‘naturalism’ begins by identifying three key axioms and one theorem shared by philosophers thus self-styled. Owing much to Quine and Ernest Nagel, these philosophers of science share a common agenda with naturalists elsewhere in philosophy. But they have disagreed among themselves about how the axioms and the theorems they share settle long-standing disputes in the philosophy of science. After expounding these disagreements in the work of Boyd, Giere, Laudan, and Kitcher, I argue that naturalism needs to look for more than mere consistency in its foundations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alex Rosenberg (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: