Susan Haack

(? - 2026)

The first goal is to understand why Peirce describes his motto, “Do Not Block the Way of Inquiry,” as a corollary of the “first rule of reason,” why he believes it deserves to be inscribed on every wall of the city of philosophy, and what he has in mind when he characterizes the various barricades philosophers set up, the many obstacles they put in the path of inquiry. This soon leads us to important, substantive themes in Peirce’s meta-philosophical, cosmological, metaphysical, logical, and epistemological work (§1). However, it also leads us to what might seem to be a tension in his account of the motives for inquiry. So the second goal is to track the source of this apparent tension, and to show how Peirce resolved it (§2). But the ultimate goal is to explain why Peirce’s warning against blocking the way of inquiry is no less important, given the condition of philosophy today, than it was when he offered it more than a century ago—perhaps even more so (§3).

La metáfora no tiene ningún lugar en la ciencia, dicen algunos; al contrario, la metáfora es crucial para la ciencia, defienden otros. La ciencia es una empresa racional con una lógica distintiva propia; no, la ciencia no es en esencia diferente de la literatura, al igual que ésta, es una forma de creación de mundos. Hay un tipo de significado propiamente metafórico; no, las expresiones metafóricas poseen únicamente significados literales, en los cuales son simplemente falsas. Brillando por su ausencia, se encuentra un razonable punto intermedio que Haack dibujará aquí. La metáfora es útil, pero no esencial, al trabajo científico; las metáforas no tienen una clase especial de significado, pero desempeñan un rol pragmático especial; el trabajo científico y la escritura de ficción tienen en común cosas importantes, pero hay también diferencias significativas entre estas dos empresas. Una vez que entendamos cómo funciona la ciencia (§1), y luego cómo funcionan las metáforas (§2), podremos articular las semejanzas, y diferencias, entre las metáforas científicas y las literarias. (§3).

Appraising the worth of others’ testimony is always complex; appraising the worth of expert testimony is even harder; appraising the worth of expert testimony in a legal context is harder yet. Legal efforts to assess the reliability of expert testimony—I’ll focus on evolving U.S. law governing the admissibility of such testimony—seem far from adequate, offering little effective practical guidance. My purpose in this paper is to think through what might be done to offer courts more real, operational help. The first step is to explain why the legal formulae that have evolved over the years may seem reassuring, but aren’t really of much practical use. The next is to suggest that we might do better not by amending evidentiary rules but by helping judges and attorneys understand what questions they should ask about expert evidence. I focus here on (i) epidemiological testimony, and (ii) the process of peer review.

RESUMENSe analiza la integridad de la ciencia, entendida como la firme adhesión a valores epistemoló- gicos. Los valores fundamentales considerados son el respeto por las pruebas y el intercambio de pruebas. Paralelamente se examinan las amenazas actuales a estos valores, en particular en el campo de la investigación biomédica y farmacéutica.PALABRAS CLAVEINVESTIGACIÓN BIOMÉDICA, VALORES EPISTEMOLÓGICOS, INTERCAMBIO DE PRUEBAS, RESPETO POR LAS PRUEBASABSTRACTThe integrity of science understood as the firm adherence to epistemological values is analysed in this paper. Respect for evidence and evidence-sharing are considered to be core values. At the same time, the author examines the current threats to these values, especially in the fields of biomedical and pharmaceutical research.KEYWORDSBIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, EPISTEMOLOGICAL VALUES, EVIDENCE-SHARING, RESPECT FOR EVIDENCE

Sweeping in scope, penetrating in analysis, and generously illustrated with examples from the history of science, this new and original approach to familiar questions about scientific evidence and method tackles vital questions about science and its place in society. Avoiding the twin pitfalls of scientism and cynicism, noted philosopher Susan Haack argues that, fallible and flawed as they are, the natural sciences have been among the most successful of human enterprises-valuable not only for the vast, interlocking body of knowledge they have discovered, and not only for the technological advances that have improved our lives, but as a manifestation of the human talent for inquiry at its imperfect but sometimes remarkable best. This wide-ranging, trenchant, and illuminating book explores the complexities of scientific evidence, and the multifarious ways in which the sciences have refined and amplified the methods of everyday empirical inquiry; articulates the ways in which the social sciences are like the natural sciences, and the ways in which they are different; disentangles the confusions of radical rhetoricians and cynical sociologists of science; exposes the evasions of apologists for religious resistance to scientific advances; weighs the benefits and the dangers of technology; tracks the efforts of the legal system to make the best use of scientific testimony; and tackles predictions of the eventual culmination, or annihilation, of the scientific enterprise. Writing with verve and wry humor, in a witty, direct, and accessible style, Haack takes readers beyond the "Science Wars" to a balanced understanding of the value, and the limitations, of the scientific enterprise.

Metaphor has no place in science, some claim; no, others argue, metaphor is crucial to science. Science is a rational enterprise with its own distinctive logical structure; no, it isn’t essentially different from literature, equally a kind of world-making. There is a distinctive metaphorical kind of meaning; no, metaphorical utterances have only their literal meanings, in which they are just plain false. Conspicuous by its absence is the reasonable middle ground Haack will be mapping here. Metaphor is useful, but not essential, to scientific work; metaphors don’t have a special kind of meaning, but they do have a special pragmatic role; scientific work and the writing of fiction do have important things in common, but there are also significant differences between the two enterprises. Once we understand how science works, and then how metaphors work, we can articulate the similarities, and differences, between scientific metaphors and literary ones.

After explaining why, after dealing with post‐modernist confusions about truth in various books and articles from the mid‐1990s to, most recently, 2014 (§1), Haack returns to the topic of truth. She begins (§2) with some thoughts about the claim that concern for truth is on the decline, and perhaps at a new low; a claim that, sadly, may well be true. Then (§3) she looks at some of the many forms that carelessness with the truth may take, and shows that, so far from revealing that the concept of truth is seriously problematic or that there is no such thing as objective truth, it simply makes no sense to say that lies, half‐truths, etc., are ubiquitous unless there is such a thing as truth, and a legitimate truth‐concept. After that, (§4) she argues that, of course, there is such a thing as objective truth, and a robust truth‐concept. And finally, (§5) she suggests some ways to fight against the rising tide of unconcern for truth—and gives her answer to the (trick) question in her subtitle.

[W]e remark three classes of men. The first consists of those for whom the chief thing is the qualities of feelings. These men create art. The second consists of the practical men, who carry on the business of the world. They respect nothing but power, and respect power only so far as it [is] exercized. The third class consists of men to whom nothing seems great but reason. … For men of the first class, nature is a picture; for men of the second class, it is an opportunity; for men of the third class, it is a cosmos, so admirable, that to penetrate to its ways seems to them the only thing that makes life worth living.Peirce was one of those very few "to whom nothing seems great but reason," always striving to...

The first section of this paper explains why assessing the worth of expert testimony poses special epistemological difficulties. The second traces the history of the various rules and procedures by means of which the U.S. legal system has tried to ensure, or at least control, the quality of the expert testimony on which it so often relies—from the Frye Rule, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Daubert trilogy to recent constitutional cases regarding the appearance of forensic witnesses in court and experiments with court-appointed experts and scientific education for judges. The third and final section suggests some lessons to be learned from the limited success of these efforts, and explores what might be better strategies going forward.

In philosophy one runs the risk of two kinds of criticism: that the answer one gives to a question is false or otherwise inadequate; or, perhaps worse, that the question one is trying to answer is itself misconceived. Carnap has directed a criticism of the second kind against traditional ontological disputes; the supposed issue between nominalists and realists is, according to him, devoid of cognitive content. This view is, of course, of a piece with Carnap’s general antipathy to metaphysical questions: nevertheless, Carnap employs some specific arguments against ontological questions in particular, and does not rely on standard verificationist arguments against metaphysics in general. My object in this paper will be mainly to get clear the issues raised by Carnap in ‘Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology’,’ in the hope that this will clear the way for a positive account of the status of ontological issues. In the final section I shall offer some- inevitably sketchy - suggestions towards such an account

According to Goodman one important advantage of his Structure of Appearance over Carnap’s Aufbau is that his is a nominalist, whereas Carnap’s is a platonist, construction. Superficially, it is clear enough why Goodman should say this: Carnap employs set-theory, whereas Goodman allows himself only mereology. One object of this paper is to show that this superficial impression is rather misleading—that closer comparison of the two books reveals that each has a claim to be regarded as the more nominalist. Another aim is to show that Goodman takes his book to be quintessentially nominalist partly because his conception of nominalism is somewhat eccentric. And a third aim is to show that when nominalism is understood in Goodman’s fashion it is difficult to see what the motivation for it is; more specifically, that Goodman’s arguments for his version of nominalism are not compelling.