Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:39:37.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vision, Perspectivism, and Haptic Realism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

M. Chirimuuta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article I examine the perceptual metaphor at the heart of perspectivism, discussing three elements: partiality, interestedness, and interaction. I argue that perspectivists should drop the visual metaphor in favor of a haptic one. Because the sense of touch requires contact and purposeful exploration on the part of the perceiver, it is obvious that with touch one apprehends an extradermal reality in virtue of and not in spite of its interactive and interested nature. By analogy, perspectivists should investigate the thesis that scientific representations inform us about the natural world in virtue of their interactive and interested qualities.

Type
Perspectivism
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 83 , Issue 5 , December 2016 , pp. 746 - 756
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I am much indebted to Michela Massimi for organizing the symposium on perspectivism, and to my fellow speakers, Ron Giere, Sandra Mitchell, and Paul Teller. I would also like to thank Jim Bogen and the symposium audience for numerous interesting questions, and two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments.

References

Batterman, R. 2010. “On the Explanatory Role of Mathematics in Empirical Science.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakravartty, A. 2010. “Perspectivism, Inconsistent Models, and Contrastive Explanation.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 41:405–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, H. 2012. Is Water H2O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chirimuuta, M. 2015. Outside Color: Perceptual Science and the Puzzle of Color in Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. 2006a. “Perspectival Pluralism.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 19, Scientific Pluralism, ed. Kellert, S. H., Longino, H. E., and Waters, C. K.. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Kellert, S. H., Longino, H. E., and Waters, C. K. 2006b. Scientific Perspectivism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1983. Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmholtz, H. v. 1995. “The Recent Progress of the Theory of Vision.” In Science and Culture: Popular and Philosophical Essays, ed. Cahan, D.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jonas, H. 1954. “The Nobility of Sight.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 14 (4): 507–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, M. 2011. “One Phenomenon, Many Models: Inconsistency and Complementarity.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42:342–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, A. 1995. The Mangle of Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, P. 2001. “Twilight of the Perfect Model Model.” Erkenntnis 55:393–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar