Canberra Plan: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs)
Alter: pages, template type. Add: authors 1-1. Removed parameters. Formatted dashes. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Superegz | Category:Canberra‎ | #UCB_Category 7/13
Stanford, italics
 
Line 1:
{{For|the urban plan of the city of Canberra, Australia|Canberra#Urban structure}}
 
In [[philosophy]], the '''Canberra Plan''' is a contemporary program of [[philosophical methodology|methodology]] and [[philosophical analysis|analysis]] thatwhich answers questions about what the world is like according to [[physics]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=Philosophical Methodology: The Armchair or the Laboratory?|last=Haug|first=Matthew C.|publisher=Routledge|year=2013|isbn=9780415531313|location=Oxon|pages=86|language=en}}</ref> It is considered a naturalistic approach in [[metaphysics]], which holds that metaphysics can explain the features of the world described by physics and what the different classes of everyday belief represent.<ref name=":0" /> A more detailed description of the plan refers to it as a family of [[Doctrine|doctrinesdoctrine]]s thatwhich are grounded onin a [[physicalist]] worldview as well as ''[[A priori and a posteriori|a priori]]'' philosophizing to explain our thoughts about our world as revealed by physics.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|title=Conceptual Analysis and Philosophical Naturalism|last1=Braddon-Mitchell|first1=David|last2=Nola|first2=Robert|publisher=MIT Press|year=2009|isbn=9780262012560|location=Cambridge, MA|pages=13–14}}</ref>
 
The Canberra Plan arose in the 1990s at the [[Australian National University]] in [[Canberra]], Australia. Its originators were [[David Lewis (philosopher)|David Lewis]] and [[Frank Cameron Jackson|Frank Jackson]]. An important question thatwhich it raises concerns what to say once "It turns out that there is nothing of which the ''a priori'' theory is true."<ref name=":1" />
 
There are those who say that the Canberra Plan could prove insufficient and inconsistent to effectively pick out a feature of or relationship in the world.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The New Mechanical Philosophy|last=Glennan|first=Stuart|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2017|isbn=9780198779711|location=Oxford|pages=146}}</ref>
Line 12:
==Bibliography==
* {{cite book |last1=Braddon-Mitchell |first1=David |last2=Nola |first2=Robert |author-link2=Robert Nola |chapter=Introducing the Canberra Plan |title=Conceptual Analysis and Philosophical Naturalism |date=2008 |publisher=[[MIT Press]] |isbn=9780262255202 |doi=10.7551/mitpress/9780262012560.001.0001}}
*[[David Papineau|Papineau, David]], "2.2 The Canberra Plan", in [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/#CanPla The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Naturalism]
 
[[Category:Philosophical methodology]]