Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Mark's avatar

    Everything you say is true, but what is the alternative? I don’t think people are advocating a return to in-class…

  2. Deirdre Anne's avatar
  3. Keith Douglas's avatar

    Cyber security professional here -reliably determining when a computational artifact (file, etc.) was created is *hard*. This is sorta why…

  4. sahpa's avatar

    Agreed with the other commentator. It is extremely unlikely that Pangram’s success is due to its cheating by reading metadata.

  5. Deirdre Anne's avatar
  6. Mark's avatar
  7. Mark Robert Taylor's avatar

    At the risk of self-advertising:… You claim “AI is unusual in degree, not in kind” and “It is not clear…

In Memoriam: Larry Laudan (1941-2022)

Professor Laudan was one of the great philosophers of science of the last fifty years, many of whose papers and books will be read, I expect, a century from now.  I had the pleasure of being his colleague at the University of Texas at Austin, as he reinvented himself as a philosopher of law, especially the law governing proof in the criminal context, which led to his splendid book Truth, Error, and Criminal Law (Cambridge, 2006).   He taught at many institutions during his long career, and co-founded with Adolf Grunbaum, the history and philosophy of science department at the University of Pittsburgh.  There is a splendid and informative memorial notice here.  You can get a sense of the breadth of his work, and its impact, from his Google Scholar page here.

I'll share one anecdote, and open comments for remembrances by others.  I first met Larry in the late 1990s, when he would come up to Austin to do research in the university libraries.  He was just getting interested in the epistemology of law, as it were, and went to see the Dean of the Law School to find out who he should talk to on the faculty.  The Dean sent him to me.   I remember the day well.  He knocked on the door, came in and introduced himself:  "I'm Larry Laudan, I am a philosopher of science."  I had a couple of Laudan books on my shelf, and I remember saying, somewhat star struck, "I know who you are!"  I greatly enjoyed talking with Larry during his time in Austin, and also arranged for him to teach a seminar on legal epistemology, which he did on a regular basis for a number of years, including after my departure from Austin.  I also had a lovely time visiting Larry and his wife Rachel, also an historian and philosopher of science (geology in particular), in Mexico City, when he arranged for me to give some talks at UNAM.   He was a great scholar and philosopher, and a convivial and warm human being.  I will miss him greatly. 

(Thanks to Ruchira Paul for the pointer to the memorial notice.)

 

 

 

Leave a Reply to Howard Sankey Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

5 responses to “In Memoriam: Larry Laudan (1941-2022)”

  1. Yes, the two of them were at Virginia Tech for several years and were part of the creation of the Center for Science and Technology Studies here in the 1980s.

  2. Guha Krishnamurthi

    He was an absolute gem. I took that Legal Epistemology seminar in law school, one of my favorite classes. He had a great sense of humor, even in discussing arcane facets of evidence. I too will miss him dearly.

  3. This brings back memories: Larry and Rachel were visitors to Melbourne HPS for several months in 1984. The manuscript of Science and Values was circulated before their arrival. Larry gave a series of lectures that, from memory, were primarily based on Science and Values. I remember him drawing large circles on the board to represent the holist view of science that he associated with Kuhn. But I also remember him presenting the view that the rules of scientific method should be analysed as empirically evaluable hypothetical imperatives in those lectures. I don't recall him calling this view "normative naturalism" at the time, though this is the label he later applied to the view in his 1987 APQ paper. Because of those lectures I've always seen a close connection between normative naturalism and the view about the aims of science that he developed in Science and Values. Apart from those lectures, I recall a number of very helpful discussions I had with Larry: we met to discuss a paper I had written about Quine and Kuhn; and, at one point, I remember Larry explaining Barry Barnes's finitism to me. At one point, Larry presented his paper on the demise of the demarcation problem to the departmental seminar. Alan Musgrave was also there as a visitor, and there was quite an interesting discussion of how to understand the point of Popper's falsifiability criterion. I remember seeing Larry walking away from the university very late one night: he later explained that he had developed the habit of writing in the middle of the night while he was a graduate student.

  4. I have taught *Truth, Error, and Criminal Law* for years to a great many pre-law students. It is an excellent and underappreciated book. Most of its central topics are of ongoing concern. The topics are theoretically important and have tremendous practical significance as well.

    I remember wondering what Larry would come up with when I first learned he was taking up legal epistemology. I was not surprised that the work was quite good – it is Larry Laudan's work after all.

    I was surprised, however, that the work is as truly terrific as it is: bold no-nonsense excellence of lasting value.

  5. I did not know Larry Laudan personally, but he is my academic-grandfather – the supervisor of my supervisor. I did have a skype conversation with him, the year he was moving from Texas to Kentucky, in which we discussed, among other things, his influential paper "A Confutation of Convergent Realism". This paper of Laudan's, along with van Fraassen's Scientifc Image, (as I argue in Resisting Scientfic Realism) did much to set the terms of the contemporary realism/anti-realism debates in philosophy of science. Both of them provide us with compelling reasons to resist scientific realism! Both give us reason to be sceptical about theoretical knowledge. Incidentally, Laudan is credited with presenting us with a version of the Pessimistic Induction in that paper – this is the standard reading of "Confutation". In fact, Laudan's principal aim in that paper is to sever the connection between the truth (or approximate true) of a theory and its empirical success (there is a parallel argument severing the link between the genuine reference of our theoretical terms and empirical success). Above, Howard Sankey rightly notes the great value of Laudan's book Scence and Values (which includes a lightly reworked version of Confutation). In fact, Science and Values has been cited over 2000 times. His impact in philosophy of science persists!

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

Designed with WordPress