Tag Archives: Scientism

Reflecting on Russell’s Religion and Science 3. Russell as a Skeptic, Even with Respect to Science

1. The present post is the third in a series of posts reflecting on the philosophical theses at work in Bertrand Russell’s Religion and Science.* In the series’ previous posts, I have directed attention to Russell’s “exclusivist epistemological scientism,” as … Continue reading

Posted in Bertrand Russell’s Religion and Science | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reflecting on Russell’s Religion and Science 2. Its Scientism Confirmed and Two Complications Raised

1. The present post is the second in a series of posts reflecting on the philosophical theses at work in Bertrand Russell’s Religion and Science.* In the series’ opening post, I did three things pertinent to the present one. First, … Continue reading

Posted in Scientism | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reflecting on Russell’s Religion and Science 1. Scientism and the Four Purported Magisteria

1. One reason why I have not been posting over the past months is because I have been caught up in the teaching of courses new to me, in ethics, medical ethics, and environmental ethics. These having been courses for … Continue reading

Posted in Scientism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Distinction between Scientisms

In the opening chapter, “0,” of his Scholastic Metaphysics. A Contemporary Introduction,* Edward Feser tells us (pp. 9-10) that Of course, not every contemporary analytic philosopher welcomes the revival of old-fashioned metaphysics. There are those who decry it in the … Continue reading

Posted in Aristotelian Logic, Philosophy of Science | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Bit of a Critique of a Feser Critique of “Scientism”

1. In his Scholastic Metaphysics. A Contemporary Introduction* (p. 10 ff.), Edward Feser identifies four “general problems” he sees facing “scientism,” the thesis that (pp. 9-10) “…science alone plausibly gives us objective knowledge.” The first problem is that (p. 10): … Continue reading

Posted in Philosophy of Science | Tagged , , | 4 Comments