Nathaniel Goldberg

Interpreting Thomas Kuhn as a Response-Dependence Theorist

Abstract Thomas Kuhn is the most famous historian and philosopher of science of the last century. He is also among the most controversial. Since Kuhn’s death, his corpus has been interpreted, systematized, and defended. Here I add to this endeavor in a novel way by arguing that Kuhn can be interpreted as a global response-dependence theorist. He can be understood as connecting all concepts and terms in an a priori manner to responses of suitably situated subjects to objects in the world. Further, I claim, this interpretation is useful for three reasons. First, it allows us to systematize and defend Kuhn’s views. We can therefore better appreciate him as a thinker in his own right. Second, it deepens our understanding of both the uniqueness of Kuhn’s views and the continuity of those views with those of others. We can therefore better appreciate his place in history. And third, as I explain in the paper, my interpretation affords us the only example of an ethnocentric global response-dependence theory. We can therefore better appreciate the versatility of response-dependence itself.

McTaggart on time

Contemporary discussions on the nature of time begin with McTaggart, who introduces the distinction between what he takes to be the only two possible realist theories of time: the A-theory, maintaining that past, present, and future are absolute; and the B-theory, maintaining that they are relative. McTaggart argues against both theories to conclude that time is not real. In this paper, I reconstruct his argument against the A-theory. Then, I show that this argument is flawed. Finally, I draw a lesson for those engaged in contemporary discussions on the nature of time.

Kant on Demarcation and Discovery

Abstract Kant makes two claims in the Critique of Pure Reason that anticipate concerns of twentieth-century philosophy of science. The first, that the understanding and sensibility are constitutive of knowledge, while reason is responsible for transcendental illusion, amounts to his solution to Karl Popper’s “problem” of demarcating science from pseudoscience. The second, that besides these constitutive roles of the understanding and sensibility, reason is itself needed to discover new empirical knowledge, anticipates Hans Reichenbach’s distinction between the “contexts” of justification and discovery. Unlike Reichenbach, however, who thinks that there can be a “logic” only of justification, Kant provides what amounts to a logic of discovery. Though Kant’s broader concerns are not Popper’s or Reichenbach’s, using theirs as framing devices reveals two otherwise unnoticed things about the Critique of Pure Reason. First, besides its general epistemological and metaphysical aims, the Critique lays groundwork for the twentieth century’s specialized field of the philosophy of science. Second, Kant’s solution to the demarcation problem contradicts his logic of discovery, so in this instance the Critique is too ambitious.

Dr. Doom’s philosophy of time

ABSTRACT People who contemplate the nature of time on conceptual grounds are philosophers. Although not usually counted as philosophers, the writers, artists and editors of Marvel Comics are nevertheless philosophers in the operative sense. In the pages of their comics, Marvel creators explore, investigate and hypothesize the realities and properties of time – including eternalism, presentism, the growing block view of time, branching time, and timelines as alternative universes (created or found). Unlike traditional philosophers, however, Marvel creators are not always explicit about the implications of their illustrated thought experiments. Instead, we are in their place. We trace conceptual contemplations about the nature of time in Marvel’s first two decades by focusing on stories involving Dr. Doom’s time machine, the plot device that established the trope of time travel in Marvel continuity. Doing so illuminates just how sophisticated Marvel’s stories are, philosophically. We begin in the early 1960s when Marvel introduced Doom’s machine, consider a series of subsequent stories involving the device, and conclude with the philosophical time-travel challenges facing the rebooted All-New, All-Different Marvel of 2015 and beyond.