Abstract
Empiricists claim that in accepting a scientific theory one should not commit oneself to claims about things that are not observable in the sense of registering on human perceptual systems (according to Van Fraassen’s constructive empiricism) or experimental equipment (according to what I call “liberal empiricism”). They also claim scientific theories should be accepted or rejected on the basis of how well they save the phenomena in the sense delivering unified descriptions of natural regularities among things that meet their conditions for observability. I argue that empiricism is both unfaithful to real world scientific practice, and epistemically imprudent, if not incoherent. To illuminate scientific practice and save regularity phenomena one must commit oneself to claims about causal mechanisms that can be detected from data, but do not register directly on human perceptual systems or experimental equipment. I conclude by suggesting that empiricists should relax their standards for acceptable beliefs.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barker P., Goldstein B. R. (1998) Realism and instrumentalism in sixteenth century astronomy: A reappraisal. Perspectives on Science 6(3): 232–258
Bogen, J. (2009). Theory and observation in science. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-theory-observation/
Bogen J., Woodward J. (1988) Saving the phenomena. Philosophical Review XCVII(3): 303–352
Bogen J., Woodward J. (2005) Evading the IRS. In: Jones M. R., Cartwright N. (eds) Correcting the model. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp 233–269
Cole K. S. (1968) Kenneth membranes, ions, and impulses. University of California Press, Berkeley
Duhem, P. (1991). The aim and structure of physical theory (P. P. Wiener, Trans.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hacking I. (1983) Representing and intervening. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hempel C. (1970) Fundamentals of concept formation in empirical science. In: Neurath O., Carnap R., Moris C. (eds) Foundations of the unity of science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–52
Hill A. V. (1932a) A closer analysis of the heat production of nerve. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B III: 106–165
Hill A. V. (1932b) Chemical wave transmission in nerve. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hille B. (2001) Ion channels of excitable membranes. Sunderland, Sinauer Associates
Hodgkin A.L., Huxley A.F. (1952) A quantitative description of membrane potential and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. Journal of Physiology 117: 500–544
Jiang Y., Lee A., Chen J., Ruta V., Cadene M., Chait B. T., MacKinnon R. (2003a) X-ray structure of a voltage-dependent K+ channel. Nature 423: 33–41
Jiang Y., Ruta V., Chen J., Lee A., Cadene M., MacKinnon R. (2003b) The principle of gating charge movement in a voltage dependant K+ channel. Nature 423: 342–348
Mill J. S. (1967) A system of logic ratiocinative and inductive. Spottiswoode, Ballantine, & Co, London
Norton J. (2003) A material theory of induction. Philosophy of Science 70(4): 647–670
Olesko K.M., Holmes F.L. (1994) Experiment, quantification and discovery. In: Cahan D. (eds) Hermann Helmholtz. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 50–108
Osiander, A. (1543/1992). Forward to copernicus. In E. Rosen (Ed.), On the revolutions. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Van Fraassen B. C. (1980) The scientific image. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Van Fraassen B. C. (1985) Empiricism in philosophy of science. In: Churchland P. M., Hooker C. A. (eds) Images of science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Van Fraassen, B. C. (2006). ‘Structure, its shadow and substance’ penultimate. http://www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/abstract/StructureBvF.pdf
Williams B. (1978) Descartes: The project of pure inquiry. Pelican, London
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This paper is based on the talk I gave at the conference Monika Dullstein, Jochen Apel, Pavel Radchenko and Peter McLaughlin organized in honor of Daniela Bailer-Jones. Thanks to them for inviting me, and thanks to the participants, especially Peter Machamer, Sandra D Mitchell and Jim Woodward. Thanks to Ken Schaffner and Ted McGuire for helpful discussion, and to Mike Smith and the Trident, the wonderful espresso bar he runs in Boulder, Colorado.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bogen, J. ‘Saving the phenomena’ and saving the phenomena. Synthese 182, 7–22 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9619-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9619-4