Naturalized metaphilosophy

Traditional representations of philosophy have tended to prize the role of reason in the discipline. These accounts focus exclusively on ideas and arguments as animating forces in the field. But anecdotal evidence and more rigorous sociological studies suggest there is more going on in philosophy. I...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Synthese (Dordrecht) 2011-09, Vol.182 (2), p.297-313
Main Authors: Morrow, David R., Sula, Chris Alen
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biology
Cognition & reasoning
Discipline
Education
Empirical evidence
Empiricism
Epistemology
Gender
Hypotheses
Logic
Metaphilosophy
Metaphysics
Philosophers
Philosophical psychology
Philosophy
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Science
Platonism
Rationality
Reason
Science
Social factors
Social influence
Social psychology
Studies
Truth
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Traditional representations of philosophy have tended to prize the role of reason in the discipline. These accounts focus exclusively on ideas and arguments as animating forces in the field. But anecdotal evidence and more rigorous sociological studies suggest there is more going on in philosophy. In this article, we present two hypotheses about social factors in the field: that social factors influence the development of philosophy, and that status and reputation—and thus social influence—will tend to be awarded to philosophers who offer rationally compelling arguments for their views. In order to test these hypotheses, we need a more comprehensive grasp on the field than traditional representations afford. In particular, we need more substantial data about various social connections between philosophers. This investigation belongs to a naturalized metaphilosophy, an empirical study of the discipline itself, and it offers prospects for a fuller and more reliable understanding of philosophy.
ISSN:0039-7857
1573-0964
DOI:10.1007/s11229-009-9662-1