Seungbae Park argues that Bas van Fraassen’s rejection of inference to the best explanation (IBE) is problematic for his contextual theory of explanation because van Fraassen uses IBE to support the contextual theory. This paper provides a defense of van Fraassen’s views from Park’s objections. I point out three weaknesses of Park’s objection against van Fraassen. First, van Fraassen may be perfectly content to accept the implications that Park claims to follow from his views. Second, even if van Fraassen rejects (...) IBE he may still endorse particular arguments that instantiate IBE. Third, van Fraassen does not, in fact, use IBE to support his contextual theory. (shrink)

In this article, I explore the compatibility of inference to the best explanation (IBE) with several influential models and accounts of scientific explanation. First, I explore the different conceptions of IBE and limit my discussion to two: the heuristic conception and the objective Bayesian conception. Next, I discuss five models of scientific explanation with regard to each model’s compatibility with IBE. I argue that Kitcher’s unificationist account supports IBE; Railton’s deductive–nomological–probabilistic model, Salmon’s statistical-relevance model, and van Fraassen’s erotetic account are (...) incompatible with IBE; and Salmon’s causal–mechanical model is merely consistent with IBE. In short, many influential models of scientific explanation do not support IBE. I end by outlining three possible conclusions to draw: (1) either philosophers of science or defenders of IBE have seriously misconstrued the concept of explanation, (2) philosophers of science and defenders of IBE do not use the term ‘explanation’ univocally, and (3) the ampliative conception of IBE, which is compatible with any model of scientific explanation, deserves a closer look. (shrink)

Transandantal Estetik, her ne kadar Kant’ın eleştirel felsefesi için oldukça önemli görünse de Cassirer ve Guyer gibi bazı yorumcular tarafından başarısız görülmüştür. Cassirer’e göre Transandantal Estetikteki argümanlar savunulamaz ve Kant’ın eleştiri öncesi dönemine ait bir kalıntı olarak görülmelidir, öyle ki bu bölümdeki argümanlar Kant’ın esas ve olgun öğretisiyle uyumsuzdur. Guyer’e göre de Metafiziksel Açımlama başarısızdır; bu kısımdaki argümanların hiçbiri Kant’ın savunmak istediği sonucu türetmek bakımından işe yaramaz. Kant’ın savunmak istediği sonuç şudur: zaman ve mekânın kaynağı insan zihnidir, dolayısıyla kendinde şeyler (...) zaman ve mekândan münezzehtir; gene de zaman ve mekân empirik olarak gerçektir, yani bütün empirik var olanlar veya görünüşler açısından gerçek veya geçerlidir. Bu makalede ise Transandantal Estetiğin başarılı bir pozisyonu savunduğu iddia edilmektedir. Buna göre Kant Metafiziksel Açımlamada zaman ve mekânın a priori görüler ve duyarlığın saf formları olduğunu tanıtlamıştır; öyleyse bunlar insan zihni tarafından kaynaklanmaktadır. Ayrıca Kant zamanın ve mekânın transandantal olarak gerçek olduğunu savunan Newton’un görüşü ile bunların empirik olarak ideal olduğunu savunan Leibniz’in görüşünü başarıyla çürütmüştür; dolayısıyla elimizde kalan tek savunulabilir görüş bunların transandantal olarak ideal empirik olarak gerçek olduğudur. Ayrıca bu makalede Guyer’in Metafizik Açımlama yerine Transandantal Açımlamaya yatırım yapıp onu yeniden inşa eden “geometriden hareketle argüman”ının stratejisi eleştirilmiştir. Guyer’a göre Kant Öklidyen geometrinin de re zorunluluğunu savunmuş, buradan ise kendinde şeylerin zamansız ve mekânsız olduğu önermesini türetmiştir. Bu makalede Guyer’in bu alternatif stratejisinin çalışmadığı gösterilmektedir. Guyer’in iddia ettiğinin aksine, Kant geometrinin apodeiktikliğinden bahsederken, göz önünde bulundurduğu şey geometrik nesneler değil önermelerdir. (shrink)

In a recent article, Erasmus, Brunet, and Fisher (2021) argue that Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are explainable. They survey four influential accounts of explanation: the Deductive-Nomological model, the Inductive-Statistical model, the Causal-Mechanical model, and the New-Mechanist model. They argue that, on each of these accounts, the features that make something an explanation is invariant with regard to the complexity of the explanans and the explanandum. Therefore, they conclude, the complexity of ANNs (and other Machine Learning models) does not make them (...) less explainable. In this reply, it is argued that Erasmus et al. left out one influential account of explanation from their discussion: the Unificationist model. It is argued that, on the Unificationist model, the features that makes something an explanation is sensitive to complexity. Therefore, on the Unificationist model, ANNs (and other Machine Learning models) are not explainable. It is emphasized that Erasmus et al.’s general strategy is correct. The literature on explainable Artificial Intelligence can benefit by drawing from philosophical accounts of explanation. However, philosophical accounts of explanation do not settle the problem of whether ANNs are explainable because they do not unanimously declare that explanation is invariant with regard to complexity. (shrink)

Kant felsefesine karşı yapılan en yaygın eleştirilerden biri onun öznelci olduğudur. Bu eleştiriyle birlikte ayrıca Berkeleycilik suçlaması ve fenomenalist okuma karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Öznelcilik ithamına göre Kant empirik nesneleri sağlam/zihinden bağımsız bir şekilde düşün(e)mez, bu ise bilincimizin içine sıkışıp kaldığımız bir felsefeye yol açar. Berkeleycilik suçlaması ve fenomenalist okumaya göre de Kant felsefesi sadece görünüşleri bilebileceğimizi söyleyerek, bütün gerçekliği “kafanın-içinde-duran” zihinsel içeriklere indirgemiştir. Bu makalede öncelikle Kant’ın Berkeleycilik ithamına karşı kendi argümanlarını inceleyeceğiz; daha sonra fenomenalist okumanın temel varsayımlarını Van Cleve’in Kant (...) yorumunu mercek altına alarak bulacak ve eleştireceğiz. Bizim görüşümüze göre Van Cleve Kant’ı ele alırken ona iki varsayım isnat eder. Birincisine göre, Kant Kartezyen-Lockeçu temsiliyetçiliği savunur; ikincisine göre, Kantçı özne temelcidir. Bizce bu iki varsayımın Kant’a yüklenmesi haksızdır ve dolayısıyla Berkeleyci fenomenalist okuma ikna edici görünmemektedir. Kant’ın görünüş kavramı “kafanın-içinde-duran” zihinsel içerikler anlamına gelmemektedir; özne ise Kant’ın felsefesinde temelci bir pozisyon işgal etmez, dolayısıyla özne nesneyi salt bir zihinsel içerikmiş gibi taşımaz zira hem özne hem nesne Kant’ta fenomenal alana düşerler. (shrink)

Several metaphysical naturalists argue that the success of science, together with the claim that scientists adhere to methodological naturalism, amounts to strong evidence for metaphysical naturalism. I call this the scientific-success argument. It is argued that the scientific-success argument is similar to the no-miracles argument for realism in philosophy of science. On the no-miracles argument, the success of science is taken as strong evidence that scientific theories are true. Based on this similarity, some considerations relevant to one argument may also (...) be relevant to the other. One particular consideration is explored. The selectionist response to the no-miracles argument states that on an evolutionary model of science, in which scientific theories are accepted only after surviving a rigorous selection process, the no-miracles argument fails. The selectionist response also applies to the scientific-success argument. If scientific theories are selected for success, we do not need to explain the success of science by appealing to metaphysical naturalism. (shrink)

Park (2017, 2018, 2019) argues that Bas van Fraassen uses inference to the best explanation to defend his contextual theory of explanation. If Park is right, then van Fraassen is in trouble because he rejects IBE as a rational rule of inference. In this reply, I argue that van Fraassen does not use IBE in defending the contextual theory of explanation. I distinguish between several conceptions of IBE: heuristic IBE, objective Bayesian IBE, and ampliative IBE. I argue that van Fraassen (...) holds the ampliative conception of IBE and that his rejection of IBE concerns only ampliative IBE. I also argue that van Fraassen’s defense of the contextual theory of explanation, at best, can be interpreted as an instance of heuristic IBE, but not ampliative IBE. Therefore, I argue, Park’s criticism of van Fraassen misfires. (shrink)

The Problem of Epistemic Regress in Contemporary Epistemology and The Adequacy of Improved Solution Suggestions One of the main problems of epistemology; whether our beliefs about the world are correct or not, that is to say, it’s the problem of whether we have suitable reasons or not to think that we have the enough knowledge. The value of our beliefs and its epistemic justifiability are being examined through this problem. In this respect, Undoubtedly; one of the greatest problem of contemporary (...) epistemology is the problem of epistemic regress that is a problem of justification. On the other hand the solution suggestions developed for this problem, which is shown as a threat factor for the knowledge in point, don’t seem sufficient. In this article, the problem of epistemic regress which is emerging in the contemporary period will be discussed by examining the perspectives of tradition and contemporary epistemology. Four different and similar basic approaches that arise resulting from the problem of regress solution proposals brought by foundationalism, compatibilism, externalism and internalism will be analyzed. (shrink)

Saito’s Marx in the Anthropocene presents interesting arguments and views that propose to unite Marxism and degrowth. The importance of the book comes from the fact that it intends to respond to the ecological crisis and the Anthropocene. To this end, Saito utilizes Meszaros’s interpretation of Marx according to which Marx bases his critique of political economy on the theory of metabolism. What follows from this is nature has absolute limits and capitalism produces the ecological crisis in which the metabolism (...) between humans and nature degrades. Saito scrutinizes this crisis through three rifts: the material disruption of cyclical processes in natural metabolism, the spatial rift, and the temporal rift. Moreover, Saito maintains that the theory of metabolism is compatible with Marx’s materialism, in that Marx is neither a flat ontological monist nor a Cartesian dualist but a methodological dualist. I find this line of thinking, however, as doubtful. Lastly, Saito claims that although Marx was before the 1870s Promethean, Europocentric, and productionist he underwent a radical breakthrough and became a degrowth communist. However, Saito’s claims are hardly convincing. (shrink)