Abstract
William Whewell’s philosophical work has often been considered as a “forerunner” to the distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification, and sometimes Whewell is presented as an “early advocate” of that distinction (Losee 1979; Laudan 1980; Hoyningen-Huene 1987; Schaffer 1994; Yeo 1993). In contrast to other nineteenth-century “forerunners”, notably Duhem and the anti-psychologists (see Schäfer and Peckhaus, this volume), Whewell does not owe this dubious honor to the advocates of early twentieth-century Logical Empiricism. Rather, he was made a forerunner by those philosophers who have been concerned with hypothetico-deductivist approaches to science. Larry Laudan, for example, has claimed Whewell for his study of the emergence of epistemological fallibilism. According to Laudan, the link between the logic of discovery and the justification of theories was abandoned in the early nineteenth century, and it was then, that criteria for justification were found to be independent of the generation of theories. Whewell appears as one of the central figures in this development, because he held that “(1) theories can be appraised (“verified”) independently of the circumstances of their generation, and (2) such modes of appraisal, even if fallible, are more germane to the process of justification than any fallible rules of discovery would be” (Laudan 1980, p. 181).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
REFERENCES
Bridenthal, Renate (1972), “Was There a Roman Homer? Niebuhr's Thesis and Its Crisis,” History and Theory 11: 193–213.
Butts, Robert E. (1968), “Introduction”, William Whewell’s Theory of Scientific Method (Pittsburgh), pp. 3–29.
Cannon, Walter F. (1964), “Scientists and Broad Churchmen: An Early Victorian Intellectual Network,” Journal of British Studies 4: 65–88.
Cantor, Geoffrey N. (1975), “The Reception of the Wave Theory of Light in Britain: A Case Study Illustrating the Role of Methodology in Scientific Debate,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences VII: 109–132.
Cantor, Geoffrey N. (1983), Optics After Newton. Theories of Light in Britain and Ireland 1704–1840 (Manchester).
Cantor, Geoffrey N. (1991), “Between Rationalism and Romanticism: Whewell’s Historiography of the Inductive Sciences”, in M. Fisch and S. Schaffer (eds.), William Whewell. A Composite Portrait (Oxford: Clarendon), pp. 67–86.
Clark, W.G. (1866), “William Whewell. In Memoriam,” Macmillan ’s Magazine XIII: 545–552.
Distad, N. Merrrill (1979), Guessing at Truth. The Life of Julius Charles Hare (1795–1855) (Shepherd-stown: The Patmos Press).
Elkana, Yehuda (ed.) (1984). William Whewell: Selected Writings on the History of Science, (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press).
Feigl, Herbert (1970), “The ‘Orthodox View’ of Theories: Remarks in Defense as Well as Critique”, in M. Radner and S. Winokur (eds.), Analyses of Theories and Methods of Physics and Psychology, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. IV (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
Fisch, Menachem (1991), “Antithetical Knowledge”, in M. Fisch and S. Schaffer (eds.), William Whewell. A Composite Portrait (Oxford: Clarendon), pp. 289–309.
Forbes, Duncan (1952), The Liberal Anglican Idea of History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Giere, Ronald (1973), “History and Philosophy of Science: Intimate Relationship or Marriage of Convenience?,” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 24: 282–297.
Hacking, Ian (2002), “Historical Ontology”, Historical Ontology (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press), pp. 1–26.
Hanson, Norwood Russell (1962), “The Irrelevance of History of Science to Philosophy of Science,” The Journal of Philosophy 59: 574–586.
Hare, Julius Charles and Augustus Hare (1827a), Guesses at Truth, Vol. II (London: John Taylor).
Hare, Julius Charles and Augustus Hare (1827b), Guesses at Truth, Vol. I (London: John Taylor).
Hare, Julius Charles and Augustus Hare (1871), Guesses at Truth, New edition (London and New York: Macmillan).
Hoyningen-Huene, Paul (1987), “Context of Discovery and Context of Justification,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 18: 501–515.
Laudan, Larry (1980), “Why Was the Logic of Discovery Abandoned?”, in T. Nickles (ed.), Scientific Discovery, Vol. I (Dordrecht: Reidel), pp. 173–183.
Losee, John (1979), A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, 2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
McMullin, Ernan (1990), “The Development of Philosophy of Science 1600–1900”, in R. C. Olby et al. (eds.), Companion to the History of Modern Science (London and New York), pp. 816–837.
Nickles, Thomas (1985), “Beyond Divorce: Current Status of the Discovery Debate,” Philosophy of Science 52: 177–206.
Preyer, Robert O. (1985), “The Romantic Tide Reaches Trinity: Notes on the Transmission and Diffusion of New Approaches to Traditional Studies at Cambridge, 1820–1840”, in J. G. Paradis and T. Postlewait (eds.), Victorian Science and Victorian Values: Literary Perspectives (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press), pp. 39–68.
Schaffer, Simon (1986), “Scientific Discoveries and the End of Natural Philosophy,” Social Studies of Science 16: 387–420.
Schaffer, Simon (1994), “Making Up Discovery”, in M. A. Boden (ed.), Dimensions of Creativity (Cambridge/Mass: MIT Press), pp. 13–51.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich (1998), Hermeneutics and Criticism And Other Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Schnädelbach, Herbert (1984), Philosophy in Germany, 1831–1933 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Sloan, Philip (2003), “Whewell’s Philosophy of Discovery and the Archetype of the Vertebrate Skeleton: the Role of German Philosophy of Science in Richard Owen’s Biology,” Annals of Science 60: 39–61.
Snyder, Laura J. (1994), “It’s All Necessarily So: William Whewell on Scientific Truth,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 25: 785–807.
Snyder, Laura J. (1997), “Discoverers’ Induction,” Philosophy of Science 64: 580–604.
Stair-Douglas, J. (1881), The Life and Selections from the Correspondence of William Whewell, D. D. (London: C. Kegan Paul & Co.).
Todhunter, Isaak (1876a), William Whewell, D. D. Master of Trinity College Cambridge: An Account of his Writings with Selections from his Literary and Scientific Correspondence, Vol. I (London: Macmillan).
Todhunter, Isaak (1876b), William Whewell, D. D. Master of Trinity College Cambridge: An Account of his Writings with Selections from his Literary and Scientific Correspondence, Vol. II (London: Macmillan).
Warwick, Andrew (2003), Masters of Theory. Cambridge and the Rise of Mathematical Physics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Wettersten, John and Joseph Agassi (1991), “Whewell’s Problematic Heritage”, in M. Fisch and S. Schaffer (eds.), William Whewell. A Composite Portrait (Oxford: Clarendon), pp. 345–369.
Whewell, William (1831a), “Jones—On the Distribution of Wealth and the Sources of Taxation,” British Critic 10: 41–61.
Whewell, William (1831b), “Lyell’s Principles of Geology,” British Critic 9: 180–206.
Whewell, William (1834), “Mrs Somerville on the Connexion of the Sciences,” Quarterly Review 51: 54–68.
Whewell, William (1837a), On the Foundations of Morals. Four sermons (Cambridge: J. & J. J. Deighton).
Whewell, William (1837b), On the Principles of English University Education (London).
Whewell, William (1841), Two Introductory Lectures to Two Courses of Lectures on Moral Philosophy, Delivered in 1839 and 1841 (Cambridge: John W. Parker).
Whewell, William (1858), Novum Organum Renovatum (London: John W. Parker).
Whewell, William (1860), On the Philosophy of Discovery (London: John W Parker).
Whewell, William (1996a), The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences [1840], Vol. I (London: Routledge/Thoemmes).
Whewell, William (1996b), The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences [1840], Vol. II (London: Routledge/Thoemmes).
Williams, Perry (1991), “Passing on the Torch: Whewell’s Philosophy and the Principles of English University Education”, in M. Fisch and S. Schaffer (eds.), William Whewell. A Composite Portrait (Oxford: Clarendon), pp. 117–147.
Yeo, Richard (1993), Defining Science. William Whewell, Natural Knowledge, and Public Debate in Early Victorian Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
SCHICKORE, J. (2006). A FORERUNNER?—PERHAPS, BUT NOT TO THE CONTEXT DISTINCTION. WILLIAM WHEWELL’S GERMANO-CANTABRIGIAN HISTORY OF THE FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS. In: SCHICKORE, J., STEINLE, F. (eds) Revisiting Discovery and Justification. Archimedes, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4251-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4251-5_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-4250-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-4251-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)