Illari, P; Williamson, J; (2013) In defence of activities. Journal for General Philosophy of Science , 44 (1) 69- 83. 10.1007/s10838-013-9217-5.

Preview

PDF 15_In_Defence_of_Activities_-_my_final_draft.pdf Download (341kB)

Abstract

In this paper, we examine what is to be said in defence of Machamer, Darden and Craver’s (MDC) controversial dualism about activities and entities (Machamer, Darden and Craver’s in Philos Sci 67:1–25, 2000). We explain why we believe the notion of an activity to be a novel, valuable one, and set about clearing away some initial objections that can lead to its being brushed aside unexamined. We argue that substantive debate about ontology can only be effective when desiderata for an ontology are explicitly articulated. We distinguish three such desiderata. The first is a more permissive descriptive ontology of science, the second a more reductive ontology prioritising understanding, and the third a more reductive ontology prioritising minimalism. We compare MDC’s entities-activities ontology to its closest rival, the entities-capacities ontology, and argue that the entities-activities ontology does better on all three desiderata.

Download activity - last month

Export as CSVJSONXML

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as XMLJSONCSV

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as JSONXMLCSV

Archive Staff Only

View Item