Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Kairos. Journal of Philosophy & Science

3 Issues per year

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Is Science Really What Naturalism Says it is?

Federico Laudisa
Published Online: 2017-06-06 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/kjps-2017-0001


In spite of the relevance of a scientific representation of the world for naturalism, it is surprising that philosophy of science is less involved in the debate on naturalism than expected. Had the viewpoint of philosophy of science been duly considered, naturalism could not have overlooked the established lesson, according to which there is no well-defined recipe for what science must or must not be. In the present paper I address some implications of this lesson for (some forms of) naturalism, arguing that a radically naturalistic outlook fails to pay sufficient attention to some of the main lessons that philosophy of science has taught us concerning the nature of scientific theories. One of these lessons is that real scientific theories are far more normative than ordinary scientific naturalism is ready to accept, a circumstance that at a minimum is bound to force most naturalization strategies to re-define their significance.

Keywords: Naturalism; Normativity; Quine; Epistemology; Scientific Explanation


  • Almeder R. 1998, Harmless Naturalism. The Limits of Science and the Nature of Philosophy, Open Court, Chicago & La Salle, Ilinois.Google Scholar

  • Andler D. 2009, “Is naturalism the unsurpassable philosophy for the sciences of man in the 21st century?”, in Stadler, F., Hartmann, S., Dieks, D., Gonzalez, W.J., Uebel, T., Weber, M. (eds.), The Present Situation in the Philosophy of Science, Springer, Berlin, pp. 283-304.Google Scholar

  • Armstrong D. 1981, The Nature of the Mind and Other Essays, Cornell University Press, Ithaca N.Y.Google Scholar

  • Armstrong D. 1983, What is a Law of Nature?, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

  • Bird A. 2005, “Naturalizing Kuhn”, in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 105, pp. 109–27.Google Scholar

  • Bogen J. Woodward J. 1988, “Saving Phenomena”, The Philosophical Review 97, pp. 303-352.Google Scholar

  • Bonjour L. 2006, “Kornblith on knowledge and epistemology”, in Philosophical Studies 127, pp. 317-335.Google Scholar

  • Braddon-Mitchell D., Nola R. (eds.) 2009, Conceptual Analysis and Philosophical Naturalism, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar

  • Chandrasekharan, S. & Nersessian, N.J. 2015, “Building cognition: the construction of computational representations for scientific discovery” Cognitive Science 39, pp.1727-1763.Google Scholar

  • De Caro M., Macarthur D. (eds.), 2004, Naturalism in Question, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar

  • De Caro M., Macarthur D. (eds.), 2010, Naturalism and Normativity, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar

  • Doppelt G. 1990, “The Naturalist Conception of Methodological Standards in Science: a Critique”, in Philosophy of Science 57, pp. 1-19.Google Scholar

  • Dürr D., Goldstein S., Zanghì N. 2013, Quantum Physics without Quantum Philosophy, Berlin, Springer.Google Scholar

  • Feldman R. 2012, “Naturalized Epistemology”, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/epistemology-naturalized/>.

  • Franssen M., Lokhorst G.J., van de Poel I. 2015, “Philosophy of Technology”, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/technology/>.

  • Freedman K. 1999, “Laudan’s naturalistic axiology”, in Philosophy of Science 66 (Proceedings), pp. S526-S537.Google Scholar

  • Fuchs C.A., Peres A.2000, “Quantum theory needs no ‘interpretation’ “, Physics Today, March issue, pp. 71-72.Google Scholar

  • Giere R., 1999: Science without Laws, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar

  • Guillermin M., Dedeurwaerdere T. 2013, “Disagreement, Bell’s Inequalities and Realism: The Role of Epistemic Values in Contemporary Approaches to Quantum Mechanics”, paper available at Social Science Research Network: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2284104.

  • Heisenberg W. 1971, Physics and Beyond, Harper, New York.Google Scholar

  • Holger A. 2013, “Theoretical Terms in Science”, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/theoretical-terms-science/>.

  • Horgan T, Timmons M. 1993, “Metaphysical Naturalism, Semantic Normativity, and Meta-Semantic Irrealism”, Philosophical Issues Vol. 4, Naturalism and Normativity, pp. 180-204.Google Scholar

  • Horst S. 2007, Beyond Reduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Houkes W., 2002: “Normativity in Quine’s naturalism: the technology of truth-seeking?”, in Journal for General Philosophy of Science 33, pp. 251-267.Google Scholar

  • Kim J., 1988, “What is ‘naturalized epistemology’?”, Philosophical Perspectives 2, pp. 381-405.Google Scholar

  • Kim J. 2003, “The American origins of philo sophical naturalism”, in Journal of Philosophical Research, APA Centennial Volume, pp. 83-98.Google Scholar

  • Kitcher P. 1992, “The naturalists return”, in The Philosophical Review 101, pp. 53-114.Google Scholar

  • Knowles J. 2002, “What’s Really Wrong with Laudan’s Normative Naturalism”, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16, pp. 171-186.Google Scholar

  • Kornblith H. 1994a, “Introduction: What is Naturalistic Epistemology?”, in Kornblith H. (ed.), Naturalizing Epistemology, 2d ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar

  • Kornblith H. 1994b, “Naturalism: Both Metaphysical and Epistemological”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 19, pp. 39-52.Google Scholar

  • Kornblith H. 2002, Knowledge and its Place in Nature, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Kovac L. 2007, “Information and knowledge in biology”, Plant Signaling and Behavior 2, pp. 65–73.Google Scholar

  • Kroes P., Meijers A. 2006, “The Dual Nature of Technical Artefacts”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37, pp. 1-4.Google Scholar

  • Kuhn T.S. 1996, The Structure of the Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar

  • Laudan L. 1987, “Progress or rationality? The prospects for normative naturalism”, in American Philosophical Quarterly 24, pp. 19-31.Google Scholar

  • Laudan L. 1990, “Normative naturalism”, in Philosophy of Science 57, pp. 44-59.Google Scholar

  • Loewer B. 1997, “A Guide to Naturalizing Semantics”, in B. Hale and C. Wright (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Language, Blackwell, Malden, MA:, pp. 108-126.Google Scholar

  • MacLaurin J., Dyke H. 2012, “What is analytic metaphysics for?”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90, pp. 291-306.Google Scholar

  • Maddy P. 2007, Second Philosophy. A Naturalistic Method, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Nagel E. 1956, “Naturalism reconsidered”, in Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 28, pp. 5-17.Google Scholar

  • Papineau D., 2009: Naturalism, in «The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy », <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/naturalism/>.

  • Peierls R. 1986, in P.C.W.Davies, J.R. Brown (eds.), The Ghost in the Atom, Cambridge University Press, pp. 70-82.Google Scholar

  • Quine W.V.O. 1969, Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar

  • Quine W.V.O. 1986, Reply to Morton White, in L. Hahn, P. Schilpp (eds.), The Philosophy of W.V.O. Quine, The Library of Living Philosophers, Open Court, La Salle.Google Scholar

  • Radder H. 2009, “Why Technologies are Inherently Normative”, in D. Gabbay, P. Thagard, J. Woods (eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 9 (ed. by A. Meijers): Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 887-921.Google Scholar

  • Ramstead M.J.D 2015, “Naturalizing what? Varieties of naturalism and transcendental phenomenology”, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 14, pp. 929-971.Google Scholar

  • Rysiew, P. 2016, “Naturalism in Epistemology”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/epistemology-naturalized/>.

  • Sellars W. 1963, Science, Perception and Reality, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd; London, and The Humanities Press: New York, 1963.Google Scholar

  • Siegel H. 1990, “Laudan’s normative naturalism”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 21, pp. 295-313.Google Scholar

  • Sklar L. 2001, “Naturalism and the Interpretation of Theories”, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 75, pp. 43-58.Google Scholar

  • Stein H. 1993, “On Philosophy and Natural Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century”, Midwest Studies In Philosophy 18, pp. 177–201.Google Scholar

  • Suppe F., 1989, The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism, University of Illinois Press, Chicago.Google Scholar

  • Van Fraassen B. 1980, The Scientific Image, Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Wright W. 2007, “Why Naturalize Consciousness?”, Southern Journal of Philosophy 45, pp. 583-607.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-06-06

Published in Print: 2017-04-01

Citation Information: Kairos. Journal of Philosophy & Science, ISSN (Online) 1647-659X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/kjps-2017-0001.

Export Citation

© 2017 Federico Laudisa, published by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in