Abstract

This paper defends comparisons between pragmatist and phenomenological philosophies of science by comparing Dewey and Merleau-Ponty’s philosophies of science or scientific method. Merleau-Ponty might be said to “answer the phenomenological tradition’s criticism of naturalism” from within the Husserlian phenomenological tradition itself, revindicating the consensus between pragmatism and phenomenology set forth by Rosenthal and Bourgeois. In the absence of an argument that “methodological inconsistency” amounts to methodological illegitimacy, phenomenology ought not reject pragmatist philosophies of science because the Husserlian phenomenological tradition espouses a relative naturalism not unlike pragmatist naturalism. More importantly, this consensus with pragmatism sustains phenomenology’s own critique of scientism.

Download

Share

COinS