New Article on the Demarcation Problem Published!

The paper “Demarcation without Dogmas” written by Helsinki Circle members Ilmari Hirvonen and Janne Karisto was published in Theoria on 13 February 2022. Read it if you are interested in how the proposed answers to the demarcation between science and pseudoscience have developed over the decades. In addition, Hirvonen and Karisto give suggestions on how demarcation couldContinue reading “New Article on the Demarcation Problem Published!”

Addendum on Vagueness, Bivalence, and Science

Ilkka Pättiniemi For this week’s installment I will tie up some loose ends from my post on vagueness, as there is always more to say.  Thing the first: bivalence and realism.It seems clear that scientific realism requires bivalence, but does bivalence (or the demand for bivalence) imply (a demand for) realism? Simply put: no. TheContinue reading “Addendum on Vagueness, Bivalence, and Science”

Does Science Require Metaphysics? – The Case of Vagueness

Ilkka Pättiniemi Some time ago, Ilmari made a general case against the metaphysicians’ claim that science requires metaphysics. I agree with what was said there, but wish to make a more piecemeal case against such claims. To that end, I will look at vagueness, and see whether a metaphysical (or a merely philosophical) solution toContinue reading “Does Science Require Metaphysics? – The Case of Vagueness”

The Trouble With Counterfactuals

Ilkka Pättiniemi An important type of statements are counterfactual statements, that is statements about what would be the case if a fact of the matter were different than it actually is. “If a massive meteor had not hit the Earth at around the KT-boundary, birds would not be the only extant dinosaurs” is a counterfactualContinue reading “The Trouble With Counterfactuals”

Create your website with WordPress.com
Get started