Literature debate – Siegel v. Roth

I have not been able to write much in the last few weeks, but work continues in some form.

Here’s a debate in the secondary literature that I’ve read through, enjoyed, and will figure into the my work somewhere:

Articles

Harvey Siegel, “Justification, Discovery, and the Naturalizing of Epistemology,” Philosophy of Science, Vol. 47. No. 2 (June 1980), pp. 297-321.

Paul A. Roth, “Siegel on Naturalized Epistemology and Natural Science,” Philosophy of Science, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Sept 1983), pp. 482-493.

Harvey Siegel, “Empirical Psychology, Naturalized Epistemology, and First Philosophy,” Philosophy of Science, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Dec 1984), pp. 667-676.

Related article:

Harvey Siegel, “Naturalized Epistemology and ‘First Philosophy’,” Metaphilosophy, Vol. 26, No. 1-2 (Jan 1995), pp.46-62.

Comments

Harvey Siegel criticizes naturalized epistemology and defends the epistemological assumptions of logical positivism. Roth disputes Siegel’s criticism, but much of his critique simply misses Siegel’s point. It is clear that Siegel is capable of thinking through both schools of thought while Roth seems to struggle with this.

I am not a logical positivist, obviously, but Siegel carries the day here. He does a good job of not allowing the naturalist to dismiss traditional epistemological concerns. Additionally, he is powerfully critical of Quine.

Contact me directly if you’d like any of the literature.