How Simplicity Can be a Virtue in Philosophical Theory-Choice.

Sober and Huemer have independently argued that simplicity has no place in evaluating philosophical views. In particular, they have argued that the best rationales for scientists to appeal to simplicity in judging between rival theories fail to carry over to philosophers judging between rival philos...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Erkenntnis Vol. 89; no. 3; pp. 1217 - 1235
Main Author: Lange, Marc
Format: Article
Published: Springer Nature Mar2024
Subjects:
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=176994868&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 176994868
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        01650106
        5KZ
      jtl: Erkenntnis
      issn: 01650106
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Mar2024
      vid: 89
      iid: 3
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        176994868
        10.1007/s10670-022-00580-4
      ppf: 1217
      ppct: 18
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 861KB
      tig:
        atl: How Simplicity Can be a Virtue in Philosophical Theory-Choice.
      aug:
        au: Lange, Marc
        affil: https://ror.org/0130frc33 Department of Philosophy, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB#3125, 27599-3125, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
      su:
        Simplicity
        Virtue
        Philosophers
        Pluralism
        Argument
      sug:
        subj:
          Simplicity
          Virtue
          Philosophers
          Pluralism
          Argument
      keyword:
        Analyticity
        Bayesian confirmation theory
        Explanation
        Ontology
        Quine
        Sober
      ab: Sober and Huemer have independently argued that simplicity has no place in evaluating philosophical views. In particular, they have argued that the best rationales for scientists to appeal to simplicity in judging between rival theories fail to carry over to philosophers judging between rival philosophical accounts. This paper disagrees with Sober and Huemer. It argues that two rationales for scientific appeals to simplicity equally well underwrite appeals to simplicity when philosophers evaluate rival rational reconstructions of some social normative practice. These two rationales are shown to apply to two philosophical appeals to simplicity: in Quine's argument against analyticity and in an argument against pluralism in accounts of scientific explanation. Some factors are identified that influence how much weight simplicity should carry in these and other philosophical cases. Simplicity's legitimate role in evaluating rival rational reconstructions suggests that simplicity will also turn out to be justly relevant to ontological investigations.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Erkenntnis is a copyright of Springer, 2024. All Rights Reserved.
      item: Erkenntnis
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2024
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N