Phil 321 March 11!

! Final Exam Structure:! ! Cumulative Sense: ! !

6-10 True/False Questions, cumulative, with justication sentence. True, why. False, why.! assess some statement about LP is true/false.!

! Quiz 4 on are on TF.! ! No DN model on Final! ! !

True False Questions: Maxwell, van Frarassen, observable, unobservable entities. Yes, on exam! 4 essay questions: material since the last midterm.! Taylor: relationship between science and ethics on overcoming disagreement.! Kunn: obvious things.!

! This is where the study questions will focus on. ! !

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"

Science and Ethics. !

! ! ! ! ! !

Taylor: Rescue Rationality! In light of criticism form Kune and others, we had to realize that reason is not as powerful as once thought it was. Plato on: Reason is the salvation for human harmonous. ! Zenith around Descartes: clearest rationalist philosopher. Discover General Principles of the Universe! Empiricists: intellect isn't that powerful to grasp "a priori" truths about the world. Use reason in science to judge how the evidence supports the theory. Hume is more reliant on what it feels like to make a judgement htan on a rational theory... Reaosning is sci. is very different than in math, decline of K. ! Kune: Reason doesn't play a role in arbitrating dispute between reigning paradigm and revolutionary paradigm. Analogous to political revolution. Persuasion, yes, but no rational discourse. Persuasion can be extra-rational! Taylor: Failure of rationality in Science adn Ethics. Cultures of ethical diversity fact: we can't arbitrate ethics using intellect: agree to disagree. Taylor: there is a role for reason in arbitrating both scientic and ethical disputes.! Taylor: Emphasis on understanding human experience and let that take the argument where it goes. Continental tradition: greater emphasis on "what is it like to experience the world in a certain way "humanly." # defending relativism. but end result is soft relativism. there are times when we must agree to disagree, but this is not the starting point, end point or assumed point. we should do work to avoid this, should do the dialectical work to avoid. this.!

Reason: practical reason: Common Point that we share, and clear up confusion from there.! Socratic Version of Taylor: true dialectical exchange: no "right side" starting point of the dialectic.!

! Background: Wittgenstein: Language Game:! !

Kune: change paradigms: incompatible, incommensurable, A to B. the way a post Galileo Scientist very different form Pre: use language in very different way. Central Terms do not have a stable reference across a paradigm change.!

! Using a language is like playing a Game, with explicit and implicit rules.! ! Language games are local: include rules and pieces that we move around.! !

Putnam: concerned with social ethical concerns. "Freedom of Speech" etc. !

Taylor: focused on trying to show that we can overcome disagreement using practical reason by deploying ad hominum arguments. Begins with human experience, not begining by defending a philosophical position.!

! ! ! ! ! !

williams and Putnam: start from a different point: 4 Possible combo views of Science and Ethics views. ! Science: realist/anti-realist: realism in sci: putnam boyd charaterization of scientic realism; in sci discourse the statements are determinately true or false...! Ethical Realism: use the same language as used to express scientic realism: realist about a discourse if believe that statements are dete true/false, and that central terms genuinely refer.! Sci: terms refer: electrons, a theoretical term: does it refer: is there a chunk of the world labeled by the term electron. Yes: realist, no: anti-realist.! Ethics: ethical terms are like electrons? Plato: when say somehtign is Just, the term Just is refering to an entity, an abstract idea that exists indepentantly of anyone thinking about it, the form of Justice.! Ethical realist: believe a statement is denetly either true or false. Abortion is either true or false.! anti relist: !

Sci real, ethical real: plato! Sci anti. ethical ralists: van frassee! Ethical anti, sci realist: williams: ethical statemenbts are not absoutely true or false. Putnam thinks Williams does not adequaately defend the scientic realism that he assumes! Anti, Anti: Putnam, in subtle ways. Anti Anti can also be radical relativist. Putnam includes a desire not to fall into radical relativism, because to go there is to lose a lot, the capacity to comment on anything other the the self.! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>!

! ! !

Williams: Wants to defend: There is a distinction to be made between Science and Ethics, "the scientic and the ethical." And this is not the same as Fact vs. Value, Theoretical vs. Practical, or Is vs. Ought. In this respect (demise of fact/value dichotomy) he agrees with Putnam. this is not a useful distinction. Similar reasons for rejecting the fact/value distinction. ! Williams: can support and defend that the scientic is different from the ethical. Value can be more than just ethics, it includes aesthetic values.!

Theoretical vs. Practical: Taylor: Practical Reasoning, making decisions on how to act, what to do, vs. theoretical: abstract description of the natural world. !

! !

Science from Ethics: convergence used to distinguish science from ethics, according to Williams. How does convergence work? Convergence: overtime a discipline gets closer to a truth.! In science, it is reasonable to explain convergence by appealing to the way that things are. Science is a systematized theoretical description of how the world is. Explain why there is more agreement on what the world is like. Start witness this, why is this the case? Science is a systematic description of "how the world is" independent of any perspective. Williams is a Scientic Realist. Taylor said is 17th cent. science highlighted and gave to us. Sci is aiming at a description of the world independent of human perspective. !

Williams: "The Absolute Conception of the World" # science is actually doing this. = if we nd convergence in sci, the best way to explain this is that science is actually doing with we suppose it to be doing. vs. Ethics. In ethics: even if we witness convergence, there is no hope for that type of explainatio for why convergence in ethics takes place. Ther is not ethical "how the world is." Thick ethical concepts: used in everyday lives when make moral judgements. she is (thick) cruel vs. the concept of (thin) justice. !

in ethics there are lots of reasons why people may agree, none of them are that these people have found "the truth." Williams: what sci is converting on, is a valueless world (without the fact/value distinction). They agree because they are getting the way the world is right, excluding values, which don't exist in the world. We project values upon the world, depending on our communities of practice. There is nothing to get right for the values in the world. !

! Williams: ethical truths are local to the community. ! !

Best way of explaining convergence in sci. to to be realist in science. In ethics, there are no standards agains which we can judge our ethical theories, all there are are communities of practice. Only ethical groups, various ethical standards and norms.