What is the distinction between the manifest image and the scientific image
Discussion Forum: Metaphysics & Philosophy of Science
a substantive response to any one of the open-answer questions provided below and incorporate lecture slides
(1) What are abstract objects? Are there any?
(2) What are the relative merits of nominalism, fictionalism, and Platonism about abstract objects?
(3) What’s the best account of properties: universals or tropes?
(4) Can the B-series capture everything there is about the nature of time? If not, what does it leave out?
(5) What’s the counterfactual theory of causation, and how compelling is it?
(6) What is the relationship between parts and the whole?
(7) Could there be no composite objects?
(8) What is the a priori /a posteriori distinction?
(9) What is an indispensability argument? What problems do such arguments face?
(10) What are the theoretical virtues, and how might we appeal to them to evaluate competing metaphysical theories?
(11) What is the distinction between the manifest image and the scientific image?
(12) What is logical empiricism in the philosophy of science, and what problems does it face?
(13) What is meant by the idea that observation is theory-laden?
(14) What is the deductive-nomological model of scientific explanation?
(15) What is falsificationism, and how is supposed to demarcate genuine science from pseudo-science?
(16) What is scientific realism, and how does it account for scientific progress?
(17) What is scientific instrumentalism, and how does it differ from scientific realism?
(18) What is the underdetermination of theory by data thesis, and what implications might it have for scientific realism?
(19) What is the no miracles argument for scientific realism? How plausible is it?
(20) What is the incommensurability thesis, and what challenge does it pose for scientific realism?
Answer preview to what is the distinction between the manifest image and the scientific image
APA
634 words