The Burden of Proof upon Metaphysical Methods

ISBN-13: 9783031277764 / Angielski

Conny Rhode

Opis

Who carries the burden of proof in analytic philosophical debates, and how can this burden be satisfied? As it turns out, the answer to this joint question yields a fundamental challenge to the very conduct of metaphysics in analytic philosophy.Empirical research presented in this book indicates that the vastly predominant goal pursued in analytic philosophical dialogues lies not in discovering truths or generating knowledge, but merely in prevailing over one’s opponents. Given this goal, the book examines how most effectively to allocate and discharge the burden of proof. It focuses on premises that must prudently be avoided because a burden of proof on them could never be satisfied, and in particular discusses unsupportable bridge premises across inference barriers, like Hume’s barrier between ‘is’ and ‘ought’, or the barrier between the content of our talk or thought, and the world beyond such content.Employing this content/world barrier for a critical assessment of mainstream analytic philosophical methods, this book argues that we must prudently avoid invoking intuitions or other content of thought or talk in support of claims about the world beyond content, that is, metaphysically significant claims. Yet as content-located evidence is practically indispensable to metaphysical debates throughout analytic philosophy, from ethics to the philosophy of mathematics, this book reaches the startling conclusion that all such metaphysical debates must, prudently, be terminated.

Spis treści

1 Dialogue and Persuasion

2 The Burden of Proof

3 Evidence, Inference, and Empiricism

4 Philosophical Methods between Content and the World

5 Metaphysical Hypotheses

6 Escaping Dialogical Empiricism

O autorze

Conny Rhode’s research at the University of York focused on philosophical methodology and argumentation theory, beside forays into the philosophy of science, post-Kantian philosophy, and political and moral philosophy, often employing a feminist perspective. In light of the conclusion derived in this book, Rhode has left academic philosophy and now insists on appropriate evidence in accountancy instead.

Blurb

Who carries the burden of proof in analytic philosophical debates, and how can this burden be satisfied? As it turns out, the answer to this joint question yields a fundamental challenge to the very conduct of metaphysics in analytic philosophy.

Empirical research presented in this book indicates that the vastly predominant goal pursued in analytic philosophical dialogues lies not in discovering truths or generating knowledge, but merely in prevailing over one’s opponents. Given this goal, the book examines how most effectively to allocate and discharge the burden of proof. It focuses on premises that must prudently be avoided because a burden of proof on them could never be satisfied, and in particular discusses unsupportable bridge premises across inference barriers, like Hume’s barrier between ‘is’ and ‘ought’, or the barrier between the content of our talk or thought, and the world beyond such content.

Employing this content/world barrier for a critical assessment of mainstream analytic philosophical methods, this book argues that we must prudently avoid invoking intuitions or other content of thought or talk in support of claims about the world beyond content, that is, metaphysically significant claims. Yet as content-located evidence is practically indispensable to metaphysical debates throughout analytic philosophy, from ethics to the philosophy of mathematics, this book reaches the startling conclusion that all such metaphysical debates must, prudently, be terminated.

Conny Rhode’s research at the University of York focused on philosophical methodology and argumentation theory, beside forays into the philosophy of science, post-Kantian philosophy, and political and moral philosophy, often employing a feminist perspective. In light of the conclusion derived in this book, Rhode has left academic philosophy and now insists on appropriate evidence in accountancy instead.