Order:
See also
Guus Duindam
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
  1.  82
    Why Critical Realists Ought to Be Transcendental Idealists.Guus Duindam - 2018 - Journal of Critical Realism 17 (3):297-307.
    In A Realist Theory of Science, Roy Bhaskar provides several transcendental arguments for critical realism – a position Bhaskar himself characterized as transcendental realism. Bhaskar provides an argument from perception and from the intelligibility of scientific experimentation, maintaining that transcendental realism is necessary for both. I argue that neither argument succeeds, and that transcendental idealism can better vindicate scientific practice than Bhaskar’s realism. Bhaskar’s arguments against the Kantian view fail, for they misrepresent the transcendental idealist position. I conclude that, if (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  2.  46
    In Defence of Transcendental Idealism: Reply to McWherter.Guus Duindam - 2018 - Journal of Critical Realism 17 (5):514-518.
    I recently argued that critical realists ought to adopt transcendental idealism in favour of Bhaskar’s transcendental realism. In response, Dustin McWherter presents two arguments against transcendental idealism: it is inferior to transcendental realism because it cannot account for the epistemic significance of experimentation, and it is internally inconsistent because it affirms the existence of things-in-themselves. This brief reply defends transcendental idealism against both objections.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3. Bhaskar Contra Kant.Guus Duindam - 2017 - Understanding Society.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  36
    Judicial Incoherence, Capital Punishment, and the Legalization of Torture.Guus Duindam - 2019 - Georgetown Law Journal Online 108 (74).
    This brief essay responds to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bucklew v. Precythe. It contends that the argument relied upon by the Court in that decision, as well as in Glossip v. Gross, is either trivial or demonstrably invalid. Hence, this essay provides a nonmoral reason to oppose the Court’s recent capital punishment decisions. The Court’s position that petitioners seeking to challenge a method of execution must identify a readily available and feasible alternative execution protocol is untenable, and must (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark