Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T18:50:36.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kant's Cognitive Semantics, Newton's Rule Four of Philosophy and Scientific Realism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2013

Kenneth R. Westphal
Kenneth R. Westphal*
Affiliation:
University of East Anglia, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason contains an original and powerful semantics of singular cognitive reference which has important implications for epistemology and for philosophy of science. Here I argue that Kant's semantics directly and strongly supports Newton's Rule 4 of (natural) Philosophy in ways which support Newton's realism about gravitational force. I begin with Newton's Rule 4 of Philosophy and its role in Newton's justification of realism about gravitational force (§II). Next I briefly summarize Kant's semantics of singular cognitive reference (§III). I then show that the key point of Kant's cognitive semantics is embedded in and strongly supports Newton's Rule 4, and that it rules out not only Cartesian physics (per Harper) but also Cartesian, infallibilist presumptions about empirical justification generally (§IV). Finally, I argue that Kant's semantics reveals a key defect in the original version of Bas van Fraassen's anti-realist ‘Constructive Empiricism’, and in many common objections to realism (§V). Fortunately, Kant's semantics of singular cognitive reference stands independently of his Transcendental Idealism; nothing I argue in this paper depends at all upon that doctrine.

In experimental philosophy, propositions gathered from phenomena by induction should be considered either exactly or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses, until yet other phenomena make such propositions either more exact or liable to exceptions. (Newton 1999: 796)

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain , Volume 32 , Special Issue 1-2: Special Issue on Kant and Hegel , 2011 , pp. 27 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bird, G. (2006), The Revolutionary Kant. LaSalle, Ill., Open Court.Google Scholar
Carrier, M. (1999), ‘Isaac Newton. Prinzipien der Naturphilosophie: Raum, Kraft, Bewegung und Gott’, in Kreimendahl, L. (ed.), Philosophen des 17. Jahrhunderts. Eine Einführung Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 176–197.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. (1983), ‘Glymore on Evidential Relevance’, Philosophy of Science 50:471–481 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
rpt. in Sklar, L. (ed.) (2000), The Philosophy of Science: A Collection of Essays. London: Taylor & Francis: 119–129.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. (1990), ‘The Irrelevance of Bootstrapping’, Philosophy of Science 57:644–662;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
rpt. in Sklar, L. (ed.) (2000), The Philosophy of Science: A Collection of Essays. London: Taylor & Francis: 130–148.Google Scholar
DeGandt, F. (1995), Force and Geometry in Newton's Principia. Trans. Wilson, C., Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. (1975), ‘Identity and Predication’, Journal of Philosophy. 72.13:343–363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
rpt in Evans, G. (1985), Collected Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 25–48.Google Scholar
Fraassen, B. C. van (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraassen, B. C. van (2001), ‘Constructive Empiricism Now’, Philosophical Studies 106:151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraassen, B. C. van (2002), The Empirical Stance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fraassen, B. C. van (2004a), ‘Preçis of The Empirical Stance’, Philosophical Studies 121:127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraassen, B. C. van (2004b), ‘Replies to Discussion on The Empirical Stance’, Philosophical Studies 121.2:171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraassen, B. C. van (2007), ‘Reply: From a view of science to a new empiricism’, in Monton, B. (ed.), Images of Empiricism: Essays on Science and Stances, with a Reply from Bas van Fraassen. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 337–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraassen, B. C. van (2008), Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, R. (2001), Kant and the Foundations of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Harper, W. L. (1989), ‘Concilience and Natural Kind Reasoning in Newton's Argument for Universal Gravitation’, in Brown, J. R. and Mittelstraß, J. (eds.), An Intimate Relation: Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science presented to Robert E. Butts on his 60th Birthday. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 115–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, W. L. (1991), ‘Newton's Classic Deductions from Phenomena’, PSA 1990 2:183–196.Google Scholar
Harper, W. L., Bennett, B. H. and Valluri, S. R. (1994), ‘Unification and Support: Harmonic Law Ratios Measure the Mass of the Sun’, in Prawitz, D. and Westerståhl, D. (eds.), Logic and Philosophy of Science in Uppsala. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, W. L. (1997), ‘Isaac Newton on empirical Success and Scientific Method’, in Earman, L. and Norton, J. D. (eds), The Cosmos of Science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press: 55–86.Google Scholar
Harper, W. L. (1998), ‘Measurement and Approximation: Newton's Inferences from Phenomena versus Glymour's Bootstrap Confirmation’, in Weingartner, G., Schurz, G. and Dorn, G. (eds.), The role of Pragmatics in Contemporary Philosophy. Vienna: Hölder-Picher-Tempsky: 265–287.Google Scholar
Harper, W. L. (1999), ‘The first six propositions in Newton's argument for Universal Gravitation’, The St. John's Review 45.2:74–93.Google Scholar
Harper, W. L. (2002a), ‘Howard Stein on Isaac Newton: Beyond Hypotheses?’, in Malament, D. (ed.), Reading Natural Philosophy: Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science and Mathematics. LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court: 71–111.Google Scholar
Harper, W. L. (2002b), ‘Newton's Argument for Universal Gravitation’, in Cohen, I. B. and Smith, G. (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 174–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, W. L. (2009), ‘Newton's Methodology’, in Myrvold, W. C. and Christian, J. (eds), Quantum Reality, Relativistic Causality, and Closing the Epistemic Circle. Berlin: Springer: 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, W. L. (2011), Isaac Newton's Scientific Method: Turning Data into Evidence about Gravity and Cosmology. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janiak, A. (2007), ‘Newton and the Reality of Force’, Journal of the History of Philosophy 45.1:127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1902-), Gesammelte Schriften. Königlich preussische (now Deutsche) Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin: deGruyter, 29 vols; cited by vol: page numbers, excepting the Kritik der reinen Vernunft, the two editions of which are cited respectively as ‘A’ and ‘B’.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (2000), Critique of the Power of Judgment. Guyer, P. (ed.), trans. Guyer, P. and Matthews, E., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Provides pagination of Kant 1902, vol. 5.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Melnick, A. (1989), Space, Time and Thought in Kant. Dordrecht: Kluwer CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, I. (1726), Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica, 3. rev. ed.. London; rpt. Glasgow: Maclehose, 1878.Google Scholar
Newton, I. (1952), Opticks. New York: Dover; rev. ed. (1979).Google Scholar
Newton, I. (1999), The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Trans. Cohen, I. B. and Whitman, A., with assistance from Budenz, Julia. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Okruhlik, K. (2009), ‘Critical Notice, Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective ’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 39.4:671–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, M. (1998), ‘Relativity theory, philosophical significance of’ in Craig, E. (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, G. E. (2002a), ‘The Methodology of the Principia’, in Cohen, I. B. and Smith, G. (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 138–173.Google Scholar
Smith, G. E. (2002b), ‘From the Phenomenon of the Ellipse to an Inverse-Square Force: Why Not?’, in Malament, D. (ed.), Reading Natural Philosophy: Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science and Mathematics. LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court: 31–70.Google Scholar
Smith, G. E. (2007), ‘Closing the Loop: Testing Newtonian Gravity, Then and Now’, Unpublished lecture, retrieved from: www.stanford.edu/dept/cisst/visitors.html Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2004), Kant's Transcendental Proof of Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2006a), ‘How does Kant Prove that We Perceive, and not merely Imagine, Physical Objects?’, The Review of Metaphysics 60:781–806.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2006b), ‘Science and the Philosophers’, in Koskinen, H., Pihlström, S. and Vilkko, R. (eds.), Science: A Challenge to Philosophy? Frankfurt/Main: Lang: 125–152.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2007), ‘Consciousness and its Transcendental Conditions: Kant's Anti-Cartesian Revolt’, in Heinämaa, S., Lähteenmäki, V. and Remes, P. (eds), Consciousness: From Perception to Reflection in the History of Philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer: 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2008), ‘Force, Understanding and Ontology’, Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 57/58:1–29.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2010–2011), ‘Analytic Philosophy and the Long Tail of Scientia: Hegel and the Historicity of Philosophy’, The Owl of Minerva 42.1–2:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2011), ‘Urteilskraft, gegenseitige Anerkennung und rationale Rechtfertigung’, in Klein, H. D. (ed.), Ethik als prima philosophia? Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann: 171–193.Google Scholar