Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 April 2022
In two recent papers, I criticized Ronald N. Giere's and Larry Laudan's arguments for ‘naturalizing’ the philosophy of science (Siegel 1989, 1990). Both Giere and Laudan replied to my criticisms (Giere 1989, Laudan 1990b). The key issue arising in both interchanges is these naturalists' embrace of instrumental conceptions of rationality, and their concomitant rejection of non-instrumental conceptions of that key normative notion. In this reply I argue that their accounts of science's rationality as exclusively instrumental fail, and consequently that their cases for ‘normatively naturalizing’ the philosophy of science fail as well.
This paper draws upon an invited address presented at the Eastern Divison APA meeting in Washington, D.C. on December 29, 1992. I am grateful to Robert Almeder for his insightful commentary on that occasion, to Hal Brown, Jaegwon Kim, Ellen Klein, and Matthias Steup, and to members of audiences at the APA session, the University of Florida, and the University of Miami, especially John Biro, Leonard Carrier, Susan Haack, Risto Hilpinen, Alan Goldman, Peter Klein, Kirk Ludwig, and Howard Pospesel, for their incisive criticisms of earlier drafts. Special thanks to Ed Erwin for his excellent analysis and suggestions.
Department of Philosophy, University of Miami, P.O. Box 248054, Coral Gables, FL 33124-4670.