The debate between scientific realists and anti-realists is now a classic debate in the Philosophy of Science. Van Fraassen (2002) has suggested that the positions that take part in the debate involve not only different doxastic attitudes regarding some propositions, but different epistemic stances, that is, different sets of commitments, values and epistemic strategies. The formulation of this debate in terms of epistemic stances and the voluntarist epistemology it motivates make it plausible to think of it as a deep disagreement. (...) This kind of disagreements cannot be settled by reason alone because they lack the conditions that are necessary for arguments to work. I argue, however, that the attempts to use arguments can have an epistemic value in these contexts, as they can help reveal intuitions. I adopt the view on intuitions put forward by Chudnoff (2014), according to which they are mental states capable of motivating epistemic action. I claim that, while the attempt to utter an argument cannot convince an opponent of changing her mind, it can make her perform some epistemic actions and, thus, bring out some of her intuitions. To show how arguments can work in this way, I take as a study case one of the main realist arguments: the No Miracles Argument. (shrink)

Both descriptivism and the causal theory of reference fail to account for the meaning of theoretical terms in a way consistent with scientific realism. Faced with this problem, hybrid theories of reference have been developed. They combine features of both descriptivism and the causal theory and seek to capture the advantages of each. In this work, we critically analyze two strategies to articulate hybrid theories of reference in the face of the problem of the meaning of theoretical terms. They are (...) exemplified by the proposals of Psillos and Kitcher. We argue that neither of these strategies is successful in articulating the descriptive and causal elements in a genuine hybrid theory of reference that satisfies the standards of scientific realism. (shrink)

El empirismo de conceptos propuesto por Jesse Prinz pretende ser una teoría de conceptos que cumpla con todos los desiderata que, según el mismo autor, una teoría de conceptos debe cumplir y, a la vez, lo haga de la manera más económica posible. Con respecto al contenido intencional, propone una semántica informacional no atomista. Los conceptos, para Prinz, son meros detectores de rasgos perceptibles, es decir, entidades estructuradas, cuyas partes significativas obtienen su contenido de manera informacional. Es el objetivo de (...) este trabajo mostrar que el empirismo de conceptos es incapaz de satisfacer el desideratum que se refiere a la explicación del contenido intencional. Argumentamos que los conceptos entendidos como meros detectores no logran dar cuenta satisfactoriamente del contenido de los conceptos sin caer en el problema de la disyunción y que son incompatibles con el externalismo propio de las teorías informacionales. (shrink)