Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:35:12.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Natural Can Ontology Be?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Sharon L. Crasnow
Sharon L. Crasnow*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Riverside Community College
*
†Send requests for reprints to the author, Riverside Community College, 2001 Third Street, Norco, CA 92860-2600; e-mail: scrasnow@rccd.cc.ca.us.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Arthur Fine's Natural Ontological Attitude (NOA) is intended to provide an alternative to both realism and antirealism. I argue that the most plausible meaning of “natural” in NOA is “nonphilosophical,” but that Fine comes to NOA through a particular conception of philosophy. I suggest that instead of a natural attitude we should adopt a philosophical attitude. This is one that is self-conscious, pragmatic, pluralistic, and sensitive to context. I conclude that when scientific realism and antirealism are viewed with a philosophical attitude there are still legitimate philosophical questions to address.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 114 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

‡

I particularly want to thank Eric Scerri for helpful comments on and conversations about earlier versions of this paper. In addition, I am grateful for the constructive remarks of the anonymous referees. Thanks also to Larry Laudan and the participants of his 1994 NEH Summer Seminar during which I began to develop these ideas.

References

Brandon, E. P. (1997), “California Unnatural: On Fine's Natural Ontological Attitude”, The Philosophical Quarterly 47: 232–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (1989), Nature's Capacities and Their Measurement. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dupré, John (1993), The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Unity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fine, Arthur (1984a), “The Natural Ontological Attitude”, in Leplin, J. (ed.), Scientific Realism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Arthur. (1984b), “And Not Anti-Realism Either”, Noûs 18: 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Arthur. (1986a), The Shaky Game: Einstein, Reality and the Quantum Theory. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Fine, Arthur. (1986b), “Unnatural Attitudes: Realist and Instrumentalist Attachments to Science”, Mind XVC: 149–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Arthur. (1991), “Piecemeal Realism”, Philosophical Studies 61: 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Arthur. (1996), “Science Made Up: Constructivist Sociology of Scientific Knowledge”, in Galison, P. and Stump, D. (eds.), The Disunity of Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 231–254.Google Scholar
Jones, Roger (1991), “Realism about What?”, Philosophy of Science 58: 185–202.Google Scholar
Moser, Paul (1998), “Epistemological Fission: On Unity and Diversity in Epistemology”, Monist 81: 353–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musgrave, Alan (1989), “Noa's Ark—Fine for Realism”, The Philosophical Quarterly 39: 383–398.Google Scholar
Rouse, Joseph (1991), “The Politics of Postmodern Philosophy of Science”, Philosophy of Science 58: 607–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scerri, Eric (1991), “The Electronic Configuration Model, Quantum Mechanics and Reduction”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42: 309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scerri, Eric. (2000), “The Failure of Reduction and How to Resist the Disunity of the Sciences in the Context of Chemical Education”, Science and Education 9,5 (in press).Google Scholar
Stump, David (1996), “From Epistemology and Metaphysics to Concrete Connections”, in Galison, P. and Stump, D. (eds.), The Disunity of Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 255–286.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas (1985), “Empiricism in the Philosophy of Science”, in Churchland, P. M. and Hooker, C. A. (eds.), Images of Science: Essays in Realism and Empiricism. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 245–308.Google Scholar