It’s not Quinean naturalism. It’s logical empiricism with a computational twist. I don’t suggest that everyone go out and read Carnap, though. One way that philosophy makes progress is when people work in relative isolation, figuring out the consequences of assumptions rather than arguing about them. The isolation usually leads to mistakes and reinventions, but it also leads to new ideas. Premature engagement can minimize all three.
To some degree. It might be more precise to say that many AI programs in general are a computational update to Carnap’s The Logical Structure of the World (1937).
But logical empiricism as a movement is basically dead, while what I’ve called Quinean naturalism is still a major force.
I’d actually say the central shared features that you’re identifying- the dissolving of the philosophical paradox instead of reifying it as well as the centrality of observation and science goes back to Hume.
It’s not Quinean naturalism. It’s logical empiricism with a computational twist. I don’t suggest that everyone go out and read Carnap, though. One way that philosophy makes progress is when people work in relative isolation, figuring out the consequences of assumptions rather than arguing about them. The isolation usually leads to mistakes and reinventions, but it also leads to new ideas. Premature engagement can minimize all three.
To some degree. It might be more precise to say that many AI programs in general are a computational update to Carnap’s The Logical Structure of the World (1937).
But logical empiricism as a movement is basically dead, while what I’ve called Quinean naturalism is still a major force.
I’d actually say the central shared features that you’re identifying- the dissolving of the philosophical paradox instead of reifying it as well as the centrality of observation and science goes back to Hume.
It certainly seems like Logical Positivism/Empiricism to me, which is a problem, because that was a crashing failure.