« On the significance of the private history of philosophy journals [GUEST POST Joel Katzav] | Main | A Theorist (Arrow) Does History as a Moral Enterprise, and Therapy »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Filippo Contesi

Thanks, Eric. I agree. There is also sometimes the reverse problem. Sometimes a theory is formulated at such a high level of abstraction that it is difficult to find objections to it. This might lead to lack of criticism of said theory and, perhaps more importantly, lack of research into more fleshed-out theories of the same phenomena (or of proper sub-sets of them)...unless and until one precisely formulates a set of phenomena that the high-level-of-abstraction theory doesn't account for (successfully). The simple objection that a theory doesn't explain the finer details of some phenomena sometimes is considered as not sufficiently forceful to warrant further investigation. This may be an especially prominent issue in philosophy where high level of abstraction or generality is strongly associated with the very nature of the discipline.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Here's a link to my past blogging (and discussions involving me) at: New APPS.


Blog powered by Typepad