Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Scientific Image Twenty Years Later

The Scientific Image Twenty Years Later ARTHUR FINE What we represent to ourselves behind the appear- ances exists only in our understanding ... [having] only the value of memoria technica or formula whose form, because it is arbitrary and irrelevant, varies ... with the standpoint of our culture. I. INTRODUCTION The Scientific Image arrived in 1980 like a breath of fresh air. Although in the introduction van Fraassen counts me among the realist foot soldiers, at just that time Micky Forbes and I were engaged in rethinking the whole realism/antirealism issue. The result was NOA. Van Fraassen’s powerful and enlightening mono- graph encouraged us in that project. If Mickey and I are parents of NOA, then Bas is perhaps a godfather. Paul Teller too, since he was among the people then who helped us refine our ideas as they developed. So, today’s symposium feels rather like a family reunion. Of course, notoriously, such family events can be quarrelsome. But, despite some criticism to come, I do not expect today’s event to have that character. Anyway, there is already plenty of criticism of constructive empiricism, much of it directed at certain features that are high- lighted in The Scientific Image. I have in mind, in particular, http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Philosophical Studies Springer Journals

The Scientific Image Twenty Years Later

Philosophical Studies , Volume 106 (2) – Oct 4, 2004

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/the-scientific-image-twenty-years-later-hneXAp1Zbb

References (19)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Subject
Philosophy; Philosophy, general; Epistemology; Philosophy of Mind; Ethics; Metaphysics; Philosophy of Language
ISSN
0031-8116
eISSN
1573-0883
DOI
10.1023/A:1013114421747
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ARTHUR FINE What we represent to ourselves behind the appear- ances exists only in our understanding ... [having] only the value of memoria technica or formula whose form, because it is arbitrary and irrelevant, varies ... with the standpoint of our culture. I. INTRODUCTION The Scientific Image arrived in 1980 like a breath of fresh air. Although in the introduction van Fraassen counts me among the realist foot soldiers, at just that time Micky Forbes and I were engaged in rethinking the whole realism/antirealism issue. The result was NOA. Van Fraassen’s powerful and enlightening mono- graph encouraged us in that project. If Mickey and I are parents of NOA, then Bas is perhaps a godfather. Paul Teller too, since he was among the people then who helped us refine our ideas as they developed. So, today’s symposium feels rather like a family reunion. Of course, notoriously, such family events can be quarrelsome. But, despite some criticism to come, I do not expect today’s event to have that character. Anyway, there is already plenty of criticism of constructive empiricism, much of it directed at certain features that are high- lighted in The Scientific Image. I have in mind, in particular,

Journal

Philosophical StudiesSpringer Journals

Published: Oct 4, 2004

There are no references for this article.