Skip to main content
Log in

‘Saving the phenomena’ and saving the phenomena

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogen J., Woodward J. (2005) Evading the IRS. In: Jones M. R., Cartwright N. (eds) Correcting the model. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp 233–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole K. S. (1968) Kenneth membranes, ions, and impulses. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill A. V. (1932a) A closer analysis of the heat production of nerve. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B III: 106–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill A. V. (1932b) Chemical wave transmission in nerve. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hille B. (2001) Ion channels of excitable membranes. Sunderland, Sinauer Associates

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill J. S. (1967) A system of logic ratiocinative and inductive. Spottiswoode, Ballantine, & Co, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton J. (2003) A material theory of induction. Philosophy of Science 70(4): 647–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jim Bogen.

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

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9619-4

Keywords

Navigation