1. What are Haack’s five varieties of naturalism in “Naturalism Disambiguated and which version does she opt for? How does her distinction between “science” and “SCIENCE” come into play in these definitions? What are Quine’s “two shifts,” and why, according to Haack, does he make them? What are two epistemological issues that cannot, according to Haack, be resolved by “science”? How does she attempt to resolve them?
3. What is van Fraassen’s “empiricist slogan”? Summarize the five clauses he extracts from it. What criticisms does he bring against these clauses? Why is the empiricist slogan “caught between metaphor and metaphysics”? Why does even a refined version of the empiricist slogan threaten to slide into a metaphysics incompatible with empiricism? If it is not metaphysical, the refined empiricist slogan, assuming it is a claim at all, must be an empirical hypothesis. Why can such a hypothesis neither be falsified nor confirmed? What conclusions concerning “bridled irrationality” and “defensive epistemology” does van Fraassen draw from this? How does he exploit Carnap’s idea of pragmatic theory choice? What aspects of Carnap’s view of pragmatic theory choice does he criticize? Why is empiricism a “stance” and not a doctrine for van Fraassen?
