Specter of Reason

“It may easily look as if every doubt merely revealed an existing gap in the foundations; so that secure understanding is only possible if we first doubt everything that can be doubted, and then removed all these doubts.” --Ludwig Wittgenstein , Philosophical Investigations , section 87 I. I think, therefore I am Descartes' famous principle, cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am," also known simply as the cogito ), is probably the most widely known philosophical statement, and it is often considered to exemplify the only thing one can know for certain: that one exists. The cogito might be considered an instance of modus ponens : "If I am thinking, then I exist; I am thinking, therefore I exist." However, Jaako Hintikka ( 1962 ) compellingly argues that Descartes' cogito ergo sum is not a logical inference at all, but a performative act: that a certain cognitive act instantiates direct knowledge of one's existence--that the act of thinking make...

"a nothing would serve just as well as a something about which nothing could be said." --Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations , section 304 One of the common arguments against atheism is that it offers no ground for morality. Atheism is equated with moral relativism and nihilism, with the idea that nothing is ultimately good or bad, and so there can be no reason to choose one action over another. This, it is said, undermines the very fabric of civilization. I shall argue that this is not only false, but backwards. If there can be any ground for moral decisions, it certainly is not theism. Theism fails to offer a knowable ground for moral wisdom. (Note: This is not to say that religions have no moral wisdom to offer. If a religious institution has moral wisdom to offer, it does so in spite of and in contradiction with its theistic foundations.) Theism may here be defined as any belief in a supernatural agent; that is, any belief which regards natural entit...

This is the latest in my email correspondence with Professor Torin Alter, who specializes in the philosophy of mind. Dear Torin, I'm not going to respond to all of the issues raised in our previous exchanges. I would, for example, like to discuss the issue of operational definitions and your discomfort with my a priori approach to physicalism. But I'll put those topics off for a possible future time. For now, I've decided to construct a new argument about phenomenal knowledge which may help clear a path towards mutual understanding. I checked out your paper, “ Phenomenal Knowledge Without Experience ,” as you suggested, and I would like to begin by quoting its opening sentences: “Phenomenal knowledge usually comes from experience. For example, I know what it’s like to see red because I have done so.” The meaning of the phrase "phenomenal knowledge" is not obvious, which may be one reason why so many papers are written about it. One thing seems clear enough to...

The following is a slightly improved version of a post I recently contributed to the PhilPapers discussion forum . It is a response to Alvin Plantinga's "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism ." I do not know how much serious discussion among professional philosophers has been devoted to Plantinga's argument, though I know it is widely heralded by many non-professionals who do not like evolutionary theory. Plantinga wants to use evolutionary theory to attack naturalism, but his argument fails on epistemological grounds. His error is two-fold. First, he fails to state his general epistemological position, and so leaves us wondering what he means by "truth." Second, and more detrimental to his argument, he fails to consider the possibility of epistemological behaviorism, which I take to be the most robust and compelling approach to epistemology (following the work of Peirce, Dewey, Wittgenstein, Quine, Davidson, and Rorty, to name but a few). Consider ...

I'm grateful to a mysterious Steve who, in responding to my last entry, nudged me towards expounding upon a simple idea: that our capacity for speculation far exceeds our ability to make sense; and the corollary, that nonsense is the necessary surplus of scientific discovery. I hadn't spent much time trying to formulate an argument for this idea, but thanks to Steve's questioning, I've begun to forge a philosophical investigation out of it. A key point here is the notion of nonsense, which Steve called me on in his most recent response. He wrote: I guess it comes down to being clear about the meaning of "nonsense". The Phlogiston theory turned out to be false - but until the experiments were done it was a reasonable speculation - it didn't contradict known experimental results, so I wouldn't classify it as nonsense then. To base a new theory on it now - after phlogiston has been experimentally discredited - that would count as nonsense. So, I don...

Our capacity for speculation far exceeds our ability to make sense. As it should be. How could we construct so many useful observations and theories, if we didn't leave tons of nonsense by the wayside? Nonsense is the necessary surplus of scientific discovery. Right?

The state of biology education in America is alarming. According to a well-known study of dozens of countries around the world, America is second only to Turkey in having the highest percentage of citizens who do not accept the scientific fact of evolution. According to a recent Penn State study , evolutionary theory is dangerously neglected in the biology classroom. Many teachers avoid the subject altogether, and only a small percentage emphasize its importance to the field of biology. Meanwhile, a number of them already discuss creationism in the classroom. A broader cultural dilemma is involved: how to resolve the tension between science and religion in America. This is a serious issue, and I do not think America's scientists are responding to it properly. The most outspoken supporters of evolutionary theory believe their biggest enemies are those who try to wedge discussions of Intelligent Design into the science classroom. This is a mistake. In The God Delusion, Richard Dawki...