NATURALISM
Abstract
I offer a minimal characterization of naturalism, with ontological, epistemological, psychological and evaluative dimensions. I explain why naturalism is attractive. I note that naturalists disagree among themselves about, among other things, the nature of values, beliefs, and abstractions. I close by responding to some standard objections to naturalism.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 1 · Cited by 3
- Authors
- Oppy, G.
- Corresponding author
- Oppy, Graham
- ORCID
- Oppy, Graham
- Venue
- Think
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2020
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 56
- Pages
- 7-20
- ISSN
- 1477-1756 (ISSN-L)
- 1755-1196
- OpenAlex
- W4245229278
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 4.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Think (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Keywords
- naturalism, ontological naturalism, epistemological naturalism, nature of value, belief, abstraction, metaphysics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
