Points of View and Disagreement

A special issue of Philosophies (ISSN 2409-9287).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (15 March 2022) | Viewed by 4206

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Philosophy, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY 13902, USA
Interests: the intersection of philosophy of mind; metaphysics; epistemology and logic

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues:

Knowledge lies at the core of our being. It grounds everything we do. Realists tell us that there is only one reality. And reality is what we know, according to epistemologists. So all of human knowledge should cohere nicely, revealing to us this one reality we all live in.

Alas… this doesn’t even remotely describe what we actually experience. What we experience is a vast sea of conflicting knowledges, all expressed in passionate and sometimes deadly disagreements. Often, these differing knowledges concern the deepest, most important parts of our lives: the nature of the world we live in (e.g., was it created or not); whether science is good and truth-producing or mostly evil and a hoax; whether vaccines are a public good; whether the global temperature is rising and, if so, why; whether there are any just wars. And, this is just an introductory list. It looks, therefore, as if the 8 billion humans on Earth constitute at least that many points of view.

It is common, at this step, for someone to point out that while there are many, many points of view on important topics, for each such topic, only a few closely related points of view constitute knowledge of that topic. Opinions vary; knowledge does not. But the fundamental problem is here: Who decides who has knowledge and who has mere opinion? For every person who decides one way, there is another who decides some other way. Fortunately, Philosophies is running a Special Issue where this all can be worked out.

Topics include, but are not limited to:

  • Disagreements and points of view: How are points of view and disagreements related? Are we destined to always disagree?
  • Formal treatments of points of view, including logics incorporating and describing points of view.
  • How should we pick who adjudicates between the points of view that constitute knowledge and the ones that are mere opinion, assuming this very distinction isn’t question-begging?
  • Moral and ethical consequences of deciding that some people’s cherished point of view is wrong.
  • Ontological and epistemological status of points of view: Are points of view basic in any way? Are there different kinds of points of view?
  • Psychology and points of view: Why do points of view vary so much? Why do humans have differing points of view at all? Are points of view kinds of perceptions?
  • Relativism, of all varieties, and points of view: Does taking others’ points of view seriously mean that relativism is inevitable?
  • What social policies, if any, should govern how we decide who knows and who doesn’t? It can’t all come down to pragmatics because people disagree about what they regard as pragmatically reasonable.

Prof. Eric Dietrich
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Philosophies is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Belief
  • Consciousness
  • Disagreement
  • Intentionality
  • Knowledge
  • Points of view
  • Phenomenology of believing
  • Phenomenology of knowing
  • Relativism
  • Science

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (1 paper)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

18 pages, 887 KiB  
Article
Different Roles for Multiple Perspectives and Rigorous Testing in Scientific Theories and Models: Towards More Open, Context-Appropriate Verificationism
by Peter Cariani
Philosophies 2022, 7(3), 54; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies7030054 - 19 May 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 3481
Abstract
A form of context-appropriate verificationism is proposed that distinguishes between scientific theories as evolving systems of ideas and operationally-specified, testable formal-empirical models. Theories undergo three stages (modes): a formative, exploratory, heuristic phase of theory conception, a developmental phase of theory-pruning and refinement, and [...] Read more.
A form of context-appropriate verificationism is proposed that distinguishes between scientific theories as evolving systems of ideas and operationally-specified, testable formal-empirical models. Theories undergo three stages (modes): a formative, exploratory, heuristic phase of theory conception, a developmental phase of theory-pruning and refinement, and a mature, rigorous phase of testing specific, explicit models. The first phase depends on Feyerabendian open possibility, the second on theoretical plausibility and internal coherence, and the third on testability (falsifiability, predictive efficacy). Multiple perspectives produce variety necessary for theory formation, whereas explicit agreement on evaluative criteria is essential for testing. Hertzian observer-mechanics of empirical-deductive scientific models are outlined that use semiotic operations of measurement/evaluation, computation, and physical action/construction. If models can be fully operationalized, then they can be intersubjectively verified (tested) irrespective of metaphysical, theoretical, value-, or culture-based disagreements. Verificationism can be expanded beyond simple predictive efficacy to incorporate testing for pragmatic, functional efficacy in engineering, medicine, and design contexts. Such a more open, pragmatist, operationalist, epistemically-constructivist perspective is suggested in which verification is contingent on the type of assertion (e.g., heuristic, analytic, empirical, pragmatic), its intended purpose, degree and reliability of model-based evidence, and existence of alternate, competing predictive models. Suggestions for epistemological hygiene amidst the world-wide pandemic of misinformation and propaganda are offered. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Points of View and Disagreement)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop