Mirsaeid Mousavi Karimi; Jahangir Moazenzade
Volume 6, Issue 11 , September 2016, , Pages 127-148
Abstract
Van Fraassen as an empiricist believes that ‘observation’ is perception of something without instruments. On the other hand, as a constructive empiricist, he adds a constraint based on which if something is observable does not automatically imply that its observing conditions are ready now. ...
Read More
Van Fraassen as an empiricist believes that ‘observation’ is perception of something without instruments. On the other hand, as a constructive empiricist, he adds a constraint based on which if something is observable does not automatically imply that its observing conditions are ready now. Considering moons of Jupiter as observable entities and electron as an unobservable entity, he believes that we do not see the ‘electrons’ atomic theory shows us by microscope. Realist critics of van Fraassen without considering mentioned restriction and based on different reasons give examples such as extra solar planets and claim if we count these entities as observable entities we have to count electron as an observable entity as well. However, in this paper, based on the criterion of ‘existence or non-existence of observable reference by naked eye in suitable conditions’, which meet for all of the critic's examples, but does not meet for electron, we will argue, as van Fraassen has claimed, for counting electron as an unobservable entity
Seyyed Mohammad Mahdi Eatemad al-Eslami Bakhtiari; Mirsaeid Mousavi Karimi
Volume 5, Issue 10 , March 2016, , Pages 1-20
Abstract
Some philosophers believe that natural selection guarantees the reliability of belief formation processes. From their point of view, belief formation processes that lead to true beliefs more than false ones are useful for organism reproduction and survival, and so are saved by natural selection. However, ...
Read More
Some philosophers believe that natural selection guarantees the reliability of belief formation processes. From their point of view, belief formation processes that lead to true beliefs more than false ones are useful for organism reproduction and survival, and so are saved by natural selection. However, Stephen Stich’s argument, called “better safe than sorry”, shows that natural selection is not sufficient for the reliability of belief formation processes. Criticizing this argument, Cristopher L. Stephen has proposed a model that identifies situations in which natural selection supports true beliefs. He claims that the model limits Stich’s argument scope. In this article we argue that Stephens’ model is unable to limit Stich’s argument scope and has no essential determining role in the challenge of evolutionary based explanation between opponents and proponents for the reliability of belief formation processes.
