Turkish Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science
Gürol IrzıkTurkish Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science Quotes
You can find Turkish Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science quotes, Turkish Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science book quotes, the most impressive sentences and paragraphs on 1000Kitap.We dedicate this book to our colleagues and friends
Robert Cohen, Arda Denkel, Berent Enç¸ and İham Dilman
How Causes Can Rationalize: Belief-Desire Explanations of Action
The question to be pursued may be put this way: ‘‘On the assumption that all behavior is caused by the internal states of an organism, what sorts of internal states, and what sorts of causal pathways are needed to give rise to rational action?’’ Or alternatively, ‘‘What sorts of causal relations must obtain between motivational states on the one hand, and behavioral output on the other, for these motivational states to constitute the agent’s reasons for the resultant behavior, and for them to render the behavior rational?’’
Türk Felsefecilerimiz (Adı en az bilinen)
Güven Güzeldere is an assistant professor of psychological and brain sciences at Duke University. He received his Ph.D. degree from Philosophy Department at Stanford University. He specializes in philosophy of mind, cognitive science, history and philosophy of psychology and neuroscience. He has published more than forty articles and coedited Nature of Consciousness: Philosophical and Scientific Debates (with N. Block and O. Flanagan). He is also the founding editor of Psyche: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Consciousness.
Türk Felsefecilerimiz
Gürol Irzık is a professor of philosophy at Boğaziçi University, Istanbul. He received his Ph.D. degree from History and Philosophy of Science Department at Indiana University, Bloomington. He specializes in causation and the relationship between positivist and postpositivist approaches to science. He has contributed to many volumes and published in such journals as British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Science, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, and Science and Education.
Celal Şengör
Some philosophers of science have tried to establish a symmetry between falsification and verification. They pointed out that falsification is in as much need of a ‘final decision’ that something must be true as is verification. On this basis they have claimed that Popper’s asserted asymmetry between falsification and verification was illusory (e.g. Lakatos, 1970; Chalmers, 1990). I think this is mistaken and results from what essentially amounts to denying the possibility of communication. But this is not the place to get into a discussion on this.
Chalmers, A. F., 1990, The limitations of falsificationism: in Chalmers, A. F., What is This Thing Called Science? 2nd edition, University of Queensland Press, pp. 60-76.
Lakatos, I., 1970, Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes: in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A., editors, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 91-196.
Güven Güzeldere'nin yolundayım
I am very much trained in the Reichenbach tradition, my teachers were physicists and mathematicians turned philosophers, had worked with people like Tarski. And I learned some philosophy of language as an undergraduate. Now I do philosophy of psychology, philosophy of neuroscience, and there I very much think one has to know what is really going on in the particular sciences.