Non‐Naturalistic Metaphysics

Hudson, Hud

doi:10.1002/9781118657775.ch12

Cited by 13 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, methodological naturalism does not entail physicalism, which is a metaphysical thesis about the ultimate nature of reality. As Hudson70 (p.169) argues, “one could take naturalism to be a restriction on the sources and scope of knowledge without taking any stand whatsoever on whether those sources were adequate to investigate all the furniture of the world.” Moreover, jumping to hasty metaphysical conclusions can lead psychiatrists to conflate science with scientism, the belief that everything in the world must be “beholden to the strictures of science or to those causal dependencies that are the stock in trade of the developed sciences.”71 (p.39) In other words, if something defies traditional scientific explanations, as consciousness has done so far, it does not mean that it must be forced at all costs into those same explanatory schemes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The presentation of the mind-brain problem in leading psychiatry journals

Moreira‐Almeida

Araújo

Cloninger³

2018

Rev. Bras. Psiquiatr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The mind-brain problem (MBP) has marked implications for psychiatry, but has been poorly discussed in the psychiatric literature. This paper evaluates the presentation of the MBP in the three leading general psychiatry journals during the last 20 years. Methods: Systematic review of articles on the MBP published in the three general psychiatry journals with the highest impact factor from 1995 to 2015. The content of these articles was analyzed and discussed in the light of contemporary debates on the MBP. Results: Twenty-three papers, usually written by prestigious authors, explicitly discussed the MBP and received many citations (mean = 130). The two main categories were critiques of dualism and defenses of physicalism (mind as a brain product). These papers revealed several misrepresentations of theoretical positions and lacked relevant contemporary literature. Without further discussion or evidence, they presented the MBP as solved, dualism as an old-fashioned or superstitious idea, and physicalism as the only rational and empirically confirmed option. Conclusion: The MBP has not been properly presented and discussed in the three leading psychiatric journals in the last 20 years. The few articles on the topic have been highly cited, but reveal misrepresentations and lack of careful philosophical discussion, as well as a strong bias against dualism and toward a materialist/physicalist approach to psychiatry.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The presentation of the mind-brain problem in leading psychiatry journals

Moreira‐Almeida

Araújo

Cloninger³

2018

Rev. Bras. Psiquiatr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Naturalized metaphysics does not recommend that metaphysicians should become scientists and adopt the methods of science in metaphysics; it is not characterized by this type of methodological naturalism despite some authors claim to the contrary (e.g. Esfeld, 2018;Hudson, 2016). 22 Ney (2012), for instance, sees the task of naturalized metaphysics to be "to establish conclusions about ultimate reality" (p. 76) and Ladyman and Ross (2007) argue that "no other sort of metaphysics counts as inquiry into the objective nature of the world" (p. 9).…”

Section: Naturalized Metaphysics and Metaphysical Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An apology for conflicts between metaphysics and science in naturalized metaphysics

Jaksland

2021

Euro Jnl Phil Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to naturalized metaphysics, metaphysics should be informed by our current best science and not rely on a priori reasoning. Consequently, naturalized metaphysics tends to dismiss metaphysicians’ attempts to quarrel with science. This paper argues that naturalized metaphysics should instead welcome such conflicts between metaphysics and science. Naturalized metaphysics is not (and should not be) eliminative of metaphysics. So, if such conflicts are driven by the immediate absence in science of an answer to a metaphysical question, then the conflict should not be dismissed, but instead be received as an occasion to do (more) naturalized metaphysics. That conflicts between metaphysics and science might be beneficial for naturalized metaphysics is exemplified by the case of non-spatial theories of quantum gravity. These theories are criticized by metaphysicians who, often following David Lewis, argue that spatial distance is an indispensable fundamental element in any coherent metaphysics due to its role as the world-making relation. The resulting conflict, however, is found to be well-motivated since the non-spatial theories of quantum gravity offer no alternative world-making relation to spatial distance. Rather than dismissing this conflict, naturalized metaphysics should therefore receive the Lewisians’ resistance as a call to search for one. How this plays out as a negotiation between the scientific theory and the metaphysical question is exemplified in the last part of the paper where entanglement is proposed as an alternative world-making relation in loop quantum gravity.

show abstract

Metaphysics and the Sciences

Morganti

2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Element presents and critically examines the relationship between metaphysics and the sciences. Section 1 provides a brief introduction. Section 2 looks at the methodological issues that arise when metaphysics and science get into contact, which is a much-debated aspect of the larger dispute concerning philosophical 'naturalism' and 'anti-naturalism'. A taxonomy of possible views is offered. Section 3 looks more specifically at milder forms of naturalism about metaphysics, which attempt in various ways to make it 'continuous' with science while preserving some degree of autonomy for it. Section 4 adds some reflections on what might be regarded as the most pressing open problem when it comes to doing scientifically oriented metaphysics (but also when practising metaphysics or science in isolation): the problem concerning theory choice and the value of non-empirical factors in determining which explanation of certain phenomena should be preferred.

show abstract

Non‐Naturalistic Metaphysics

Cited by 13 publications

References 24 publications

The presentation of the mind-brain problem in leading psychiatry journals

The presentation of the mind-brain problem in leading psychiatry journals

An apology for conflicts between metaphysics and science in naturalized metaphysics

Metaphysics and the Sciences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About