Erkenntnis 75 (3):413-429 (2011)
|Abstract||Why do some epistemic objects persist despite undergoing serious changes, while others go extinct in similar situations? Scientists have often been careless in deciding which epistemic objects to retain and which ones to eliminate; historians and philosophers of science have been on the whole much too unreflective in accepting the scientists’ decisions in this regard. Through a re-examination of the history of oxygen and phlogiston, I will illustrate the benefits to be gained from challenging and disturbing the commonly accepted continuities and discontinuities in the lives of epistemic objects. I will also outline two key consequences of such re-thinking. First, a fresh view on the (dis)continuities in key epistemic objects is apt to lead to informative revisions in recognized periods and trends in the history of science. Second, recognizing sources of continuity leads to a sympathetic view on extinct objects, which in turn problematizes the common monistic tendency in science and philosophy; this epistemological reorientation allows room for more pluralism in scientific practice itself|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jody Azzouni (2004). Theory, Observation and Scientific Realism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (3):371-392.
Alex Levine (2011). Epistemic Objects as Interactive Loci. Axiomathes 21 (1):57-66.
Panayot Butchvarov (1994). The Untruth and the Truth of Skepticism. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 67 (4):41 - 61.
Ingo Brigandt (2012). The Dynamics of Scientific Concepts: The Relevance of Epistemic Aims and Values. In Uljana Feest & Friedrich Steinle (eds.), Scientific Concepts and Investigative Practice. de Gruyter.
Tarja Knuuttila & Atro Voutilainen (2003). A Parser as an Epistemic Artifact: A Material View on Models. Philosophy of Science 70 (5):1484-1495.
Heather Battaly (2010). Epistemic Self-Indulgence. Metaphilosophy 41 (1):214-234.
M. Rush (2011). Picturing Persistence. Analysis 71 (4):637-641.
Theodore Arabatzis (2011). On the Historicity of Scientific Objects. Erkenntnis 75 (3):377-390.
Heather Douglas (2000). Inductive Risk and Values in Science. Philosophy of Science 67 (4):559-579.
E. Montuschi (2004). Rethinking Objectivity in Social Science. Social Epistemology 18 (2 & 3):109 – 122.
E. Montuschi (2004). Rethinking Objectivity in Social Science. Social Epistemology 18 (2-3):109-122.
William J. Melanson (2011). Reassessing the Epistemological Challenge to Mathematical Platonism. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 11 (3):295-304.
Gideon Rosen (2007). The Case Against Epistemic Relativism: Reflections on Chapter 6 of Fear of Knowledge. Episteme 4 (1):10-29.
Stephanie Ruphy (2011). From Hacking's Plurality of Styles of Scientific Reasoning to “Foliated” Pluralism: A Philosophically Robust Form of Ontologico-Methodological Pluralism. Philosophy of Science 78 (5):1212-1222.
Added to index2011-10-27
Total downloads63 ( #14,669 of 548,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #10,270 of 548,984 )
How can I increase my downloads?