We start with a comparison between Galileo and Descartes. Galileo held (and proclaimed) his very risky views in astronomy\, and suffered the consequences. Because of that\, Descartes kept his astronomy to himself\, and perhaps even preferred to focus on mathematics and philosophy. By contrast\, he faced Pyrrhonian rational concerns openly and deeply\, while Galileo did not so much as address them\, at least not thoroughly and publicly. So\, how did those facts bear on the normative standing of their respective world views?
\nDescartes is generally accused of vicious circularity. So\, are we doomed to intellectual failure where serious inquiry only serves to make us aware of our fallen state?
\nThis lecture offers a hopeful course. When Elizabeth Anscombe faces dissatisfaction in normative ethics\, she proposes a moratorium on normative inquiry until we can attain a better philosophical psychology. This lecture aims to enhance our \;epistemic \;psychology in the hope of a better normative epistemology that will make room for \;both \;Descartes and Galileo.
\nThe talk is organized by the FWF Cluster of Excellence "Knowledge in Crisis".
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR