John Norton How to Make Possibility Safe for Empiricists

John Norton How to Make Possibility Safe for Empiricists

by John Norton

Humanities, Social Sciences & Thought Philosophy & Ethics PDScience: general issuesPDAPhilosophy of science
🎙 John Norton 👥 4K 📅 March 9, 2026 ⏱ 92 min 👁 98 📄 expert opinion 🧭 2026-08-16
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

empiricismpossibilitynecessitymetaphysicslogical possibility

Summary

John Norton presents an empiricist account of possibility and necessity. He distinguishes ‘small-e’ empiricism (we learn contingent truths from experience) from ‘big-E’ empiricism (we only learn experiences). He defines empirical possibility as what evidence positively allows, and empirical necessity as what evidence compels. Logical possibility is defined by compatibility with the meaning of terms. He argues that these are the only well-founded notions, dismissing conceptual, nomic, physical, metaphysical, and epistemic possibility as either reducible to these or lacking proper basis. He critiques metaphysical possibility by examining three categories: traditional metaphysics (e.g., ontological argument), rigid designation (e.g., water=H2O), and empirical metaphysics (e.g., relativity). He argues that traditional metaphysics fails, rigid designation conflates empirical facts with linguistic conventions, and empirical metaphysics is just empirical science. He also critiques Sider’s list of metaphysical impossibilities, showing most are logical or empirical. He concludes that empiricist possibility is relational and gradational, and that necessity and possibility are not always duals.

155 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The talk offers a clear and original argument for an empiricist account of modality. Norton’s distinction between empirical and logical possibility is valuable, and his critique of metaphysical possibility is incisive. He engages with key figures (Kripke, Fine, Sider) and provides concrete examples. The argument is well-structured, but some points are asserted rather than fully defended (e.g., the failure of traditional metaphysics). The discussion of the duals is provocative but could be more developed.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

Norton demonstrates rigor by grounding his claims in empiricism and engaging with major philosophical literature. He cites specific works (e.g., van Inwagen, Kripke, Fine, Sider) and his own book. The title accurately reflects the content. The talk is an expert opinion, not a systematic review, but it is well-argued. No comments were provided for analysis.

144 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the content: Norton proposes an empiricist account of possibility, arguing that only empirical and logical possibility are well-founded.

Quality & Reliability

8/10

The talk is a rigorous philosophical argument by a distinguished philosopher of science, grounded in empiricism and engaging critically with major positions (Kripke, Fine, Sider). The argument is well-structured and transparent, though it is an opinion piece rather than a systematic literature review.

Key Moments

Markers derived by PSI from the transcript: the creator did not define chapters.

Cited Sources

Concurring Sources

  • The Material Theory of Induction — Norton's own book, which aligns with his empiricist approach.

Dissenting Sources

Contribution & Novelties

Norton offers a novel empiricist account of possibility that reduces all well-founded modality to empirical and logical possibility. His critique of metaphysical possibility as either empirical or linguistic is original and provocative. The talk challenges the standard duality of possibility and necessity.

Pour aller plus loin :

80 words

Radar Profile

The radar profile shows high scores in information quantity, quality, and reliability, with a slightly lower technical level. This indicates a well-argued, expert-level talk that is accessible to a general philosophical audience.

Reliability 8/10