Mizrahi (2017a) advances an argument in support of Weak Scientism, which is the view that scientific knowledge is the best (but not the only) knowledge we have, according to which Weak Scientism follows from the premises that scientific knowledge is quantitatively and qualitatively better than non-scientific knowledge. In this paper, I develop a different argument for Weak Scientism. This latter argument for Weak Scientism proceeds from the premise that academic disciplines that make progress are superior to academic disciplines that do (...) not make progress. In other words, other things being equal, it is generally better for an academic discipline to make progress than to make little or no progress, given that an academic discipline that is making little or no progress is an academic discipline that is failing to achieve its epistemic goals. Now, if there is no question among academic philosophers that science makes progress, and significantly so, but there is an open question among academic philosophers as to whether academic philosophy makes progress (and if so, how much), then academic philosophers would have to agree that science is superior to academic philosophy in terms of making progress. I develop this argument in this paper and provide empirical evidence suggesting that the premises would be acceptable to academic philosophers. (shrink)

Philosophy of the city has recently emerged as a new subfield, garnering global interest. While most inquiries in this area have ‘the city’ or an urban issue as common ground, particular approaches engage in a kind of study identified as ‘intra-disciplinary research.’ An intra-disciplinary approach draws from different areas of philosophy to address problems that extend beyond the limits of individual subfields. A close examination reveals that this practice challenges assumptions holding that definitively answering philosophical questions is the only path (...) to progress. Engaging in this kind of research adds to philosophy’s set of methods, and shows promise for philosophers wrestling with complex issues. (shrink)

Philosophen scheinen sich nur über wenige Thesen einig zu sein; die Kontroverse scheint der Normalfall. Können wir vor diesem Hintergrund guten Gewissens von „Fortschritt“ in der Philosophie sprechen? Im Rahmen dieses Aufsatzes wird dafür argumentiert, dass die Diagnose, die Philosophie erziele keine nennenswerten Fortschritte (nicht selten gepaart mit dem Urteil, sie sei ja ohnehin keine richtige Wissenschaft), während Natur- und Technikwissenschaften rasant voranschritten, fehlgeleitet ist. Dabei wird zunächst erörtert, welche Argumente üblicherweise gegen die Existenz philosophischen Fortschritts vorgebracht werden, und in (...) einem nächsten Schritt auf die Frage eingegangen, in welchem Verhältnis die Philosophie zu denjenigen Wissenschaften steht, denen nahezu vorbehaltlos Fortschritte zugeschrieben werden. Drei unterschiedliche Konzeptionen philosophischen Fortschritts werden diskutiert: i) die Elimination als falsch erwiesener Positionen oder logisch-begrifflicher Widersprüche, ii) die Präzisierung philosophischer Probleme und ihrer Lösungsvorschläge, sowie iii) die Aktualisierung philosophischer Konzepte und Positionen angesichts neuer Erkenntnisse anderer Wissenschaften oder soziokultureller Veränderungen. Es wird schließlich die Position eingenommen, dass die Philosophie als Teil eines methodisch differenzierten Wissenschaftsgefüges anzusehen ist, dessen einzelne Disziplinen durch Familienähnlichkeiten zusammengehalten werden, und den eigenen Anspruch auf Erkenntnisfortschritt und Wahrheitsermittlung keineswegs aufgeben muss. (shrink)

I unpack the contents of the motto that “meaning is use” in fivefold fashion and point to the elements it contains, which are open to an ideological exploitation, the main reason for its strong appeal among intellectual circles. I indicate how the sense of it, “where there is use, there is meaning”, has encouraged equalitarian accounts of meaning and truth . I then present and discuss Austin’s distinction between the Sentence and the Statement, which entails the presence of meaning preceding (...) the use, and directing it, and offer a new proof that Sentences are impossible to eliminate in any semantic scheme of things. Austin’s distinction, as explained and defended, refutes the contention that “meaning is use”. I proceed to his doctrine of Locution and Illocution, reflecting the previous, indicating by a series of examples, that illocutionary varieties, which are varieties but not variances , can never extend beyond the se-mantic scope generically contained in the original, content; that is to say, the Sentence. Those that do, and they are several, violate the rules of sense. I enumerate his vast differences with Wittgenstein, and proceed to defend Austin’s noted conservatism against the novelties endorsed by the former and his disciples. Charging Wittgenstein’s private language attack as circular, I conclude by marking their further contrast on the actual foundations of meaning and truth. (shrink)