آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 43 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 1,228 |
| تعداد مقالات | 15,067 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 50,604,017 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 13,696,953 |
The Deficits of Scientific Scepticism: Revisiting the Higher Values of Contextualistic Pluralism in Justification of Truth and Knowledge Claims | ||
| مجله پژوهش های فلسفی | ||
| دوره 17، شماره 45، دی 1402، صفحه 116-127 اصل مقاله (572.73 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی- پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22034/jpiut.2024.57961.3587 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| Anthony Etuk* | ||
| Assistant Professor of Philosophy Department, University of Uyo, Nigeria | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Scientific scepticism, fundamentally, questions the veracity and epistemic value of claims not supported by scientific evidence. Motivated by the assumption that only the empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth, the scientific sceptics often maintain that only scientific method is best suited for this purpose. Claims found to be wanting in scientific evidence are considered untrue, and of little or no epistemic consequence. Using the analytical and critical methods, this paper interrogates this epistemic criterion of justification of scientific scepticism. It shows the inherent epistemic deficits in this criterion of the scientific sceptics, and how absolutizing its demands in such a manner as to undermine the veracity and epistemic significance of claims outside the mainstream discipline of science is not only to entrap themselves in many epistemic burdens, but also to sink under the unsavoury weight of criteriological egocentrism, detrimental to cognitive progress. As a credible alternative, this paper explores the epistemic fecundity of contextualistic pluralism – the pluralism of contextually underwritten cognitive positions – in truth and knowledge justification. It concludes with the relevance of this approach in epistemic justification as evident in its inclusive nature as well as its shift of the focus of philosophical thinking from identity to diversity in an interculturality society. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| scientific؛ scepticism؛ knowledge؛ empirical؛ contextualistic pluralism؛ truth | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Barry, C. (2006). Who Sharpened Occam's Razor? In: Irish Philosophy. https://www.irishphilsophy.com/who-sharpened-occams-razor [4 May, 2023] Becher, E. (1905). The Philosophical Views of Ernst Mach, The Philosophical Review. 14(5), 535-562. Burr, J. (1992). Philosophy and Contemporary Issues. 9th ed. Clarendon. Dawkins, R. (2007). The God Delusion. Black Swan. Deben, L. (2013). Even Ostriches Need Third Party Insurance. My Transcript Box, https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20130226_ld Deutsch, D. (2011). The Beginning of Infinity. Viking Press. Dunning, B. (2004). What is Scepticism Skeptoid. https://skeptoid.com/skeptic.php [3 May, 2023] Etuk, A. (2016). Religious Scepticism and the Positivists Category Mistake: An Epistemological Response. Sophia: An African Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs. 16(2), 10-22. Franklin, J. (2001). The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability before Pascal. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Frazier, K. (2013). Why We Do This: Revisiting the Higher Values of the Skeptical Inquiry. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. 37.6. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/why [12 May, 2023] Frazier, K. (2019). You Can't fit What We Skeptics Do into a Neat Box. Skeptical Inquirer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Inquirer. [4 June, 2023] Gardner, M. (1957). Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, 2nd ed, Dover Publications. Hammer, O. (2007). New Age Religion and the Sceptics. In: D. Kemp and J. Lewis (eds.,) Handbook on the New Age. Koninklinje Brill NV. Hawking, S. (Ed.). (2002). On the Shoulders of Giants: The Great Works of Physics and Astronomy. Running Press. Jevons, W. (1977). The Principles of Science. 2nd ed. Macmillan. Kurtz, P. (1992). The New Scepticism: Inquiry and Reliable Knowledge. Prometheus Books. Loxton, D. (2013). Why is there a Sceptical Movement? https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/Why-Is-There-a-Skeptical-Movement [5 May, 2023] Merton, R. (1942). The Normative Structure of Science, in: The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Ed. Robert Merton. University of Chicago. Normand, M. (2008). Science, scepticism and Applied Behaviour. Behav Anal Pract. 1(2), 42–49. Novella, S. (2016). Rethinking the Skeptical Movement. Neurologicablog. http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/rethinking-the-skeptical-movement/. [23 March, 2023] Ojong, K. (2008). A Philosophy of Science for Africa. African Pentecost Communication. Ozumba, G. O. (2015). A Concise Introduction to Epistemology. (3rd ed.). Michro Ticka & Associates. Popper, K. (1989). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge. Quine, W. (1953). From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge University Press. Rescher, N. (2003). Epistemology: An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. State University of New York. Russell, B. (1928). On the Value of Scepticism. The Will to Doubt. Positive Atheism. http://www.posotive atheism.org/hist/russell4.html [3 June, 2023] Santos, B. (2007). Another Knowledge is Possible: Beyond Northern Epistemologies. Verso Schaffer, J. (2015). “What Not to Multiply Without Necessity”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 93(4), 644-664. Spacey, J. (2020). 6 Examples of Explanatory Power. Simplicable. https://simplicable.com/en/explanatory-power. [4 May, 2023] Stemwedel, J. (2008). Basic Concepts: The Norms of Science. ScienceBlogs: Adventures in Ethics and Science. https://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2008/01/29/basic-concepts-the-norms-of-sc [12 May, 2023] Stint, G. (2012). Stine on RA and skepticism. https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/campuspress.yale.edu/dist/c/1227/files/2018/12/4-18-19-Stine-13idi6n.docx. [5 June 2023] Studylib. N. (2013). The Scientific Method. Studylib. https://studylib.net/doc/5845887/the-scientific-method. [17 June, 2023] Wudka, J. (1998). What is the scientific method? WayBack Machine, http://physics.ucr.edu/-wudka/Physics7/Notes.www.node6.html [3 June, 2023] | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 59 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 60 |
||