Williamson - Po P - Intro
—
Summary - is going to question how significant the gap between supposedly a priori philosophy and a posteriori natural science is — methodological difference is not that deep (cf. mathematics as an “armchair science”) - will also deal with how we react to a priori nature of philosophy - rough distinction between rationalism and empiricism on basis of whether a priori is seen as virtue or vice — move from crude empiricism to naturalism sometimes just involves adding naturalism to a priori commitments — {[green should track exactly how this is supposed to work when it re-emerges ]} - should we scale down the ambitions of philosophy? — just analyse conceptual/linguistic apparatus brought to bear in a posteriori investigations - plurality of phil. methods - few phil. questions are distinctively conceptual - there has been a failure to adequately articulate philosophical methodology — and often undertaken without clear view of alternatives - phil. should not be seen as aimed at stabilisation of beliefs — need to deal with the knowledge of the world in our “starting point” too - ~conducting opinion polls among non-philosophers in order to draw philosophical connections (cf. Papineau) - no radical new methods, just better application
—
What do I think? - will be interesting to see how he goes on to characterise naturalism (if he does) and what impact different characterisations may have on his arguments - indeed, most of what goes on here is just hinting at what’s to come so it’ll be better to react to the points above when they appear in a more fully “fleshed out” context — I’ll be especially interested in what he does with this starting point stuff
—
