Question

I have a line of thought that strict naturalism (in the most extreme case, the belief that only particle physics is an accurate description of reality) is self-defeating. I say this because notions like intentionality, reference and semantic truth cannot be expressed in the language of particle physics. Without appealing to intentionality, it's unclear what it would even mean to say claims about particle physics are true and other claims are false. Therefore, in addition to natural facts, there must be something like fregean senses or epistemic norms. Is this considered a serious line of argument in philosophy today?

Answer 1

Strict naturalism (the belief that only particle physics provides an accurate description of reality) encounters challenges when it comes to intentionality, reference, and semantic truth. This argument is considered a serious line of thought in philosophy today.

Step-by-step explanation:

Strict naturalism is the belief that only particle physics provides an accurate description of reality. However, this view encounters challenges when it comes to concepts like intentionality, reference, and semantic truth. These notions cannot be expressed in the language of particle physics, making it unclear how claims about particle physics can be evaluated for truth. Therefore, proponents of strict naturalism often recognize the need for additional concepts like Fregean senses or epistemic norms to account for these limitations.

In contemporary philosophy, the argument you presented is indeed considered a serious line of argument. Philosophers have engaged with this issue and have proposed various solutions to reconcile strict naturalism with the challenges posed by intentionality, reference, and truth. The debate continues to stimulate discussion and research in philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and philosophy of science.