David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 41 (2):177-194 (1990)
Any division between scientific practice and a metalevel of the methods and goals of science is largely a false dichotomy. Since a priori, foundationist or logicist approaches to normative principles have proven unequal to the task of representing actual scientific practice, methodologies of science must be abstracted from episodes in the history of science. Of course, it is possible that such characteristics could prove universal and constant across various eras. But, case studies show that they are not in anything beyond the strictures applied to everyday, commonsense reasoning (e.g., a requirement of noncontradiction in a deductive argument). Hence, even if some presently-on-offer methodology or description of past scientific practice were adequate, it need not remain so for current (‘frontier’) areas of science. For this reason, it is important to examine recent episodes in, say, high-energy physics. Results from case studies of several episodes in that field are used to argue that successful practice leads scientists to countenance essential changes in the methodological framework at the levels of the criteria employed in judging theories (i.e., what counts for an explanation and what are canons of rationality) and of the goals of science. *Partial support for this research was provided by the History and Philosophy of Science Program of the National Science Foundation under grants Nos. SES-8606472 and SES-8705469. A preliminary version of this paper was given at an HPS seminar at King's College, London University in May 1988. Helpful comments and useful criticisms were made by several colleagues, especially Ernan McMullin, Heinz Post and Simon Saunders (none of whom are to be held responsible for or necessarily even in agreement with the views expressed here.).
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Oseni Taiwo Afisi, The Problem of Induction and Karl Popper's Hypothetico-Deductive Methodology: A Critical Evaluation.
A. Goldman (1997). Science, Publicity, and Consciousness. Philosophy of Science 64 (4):525-45.
Nancy J. Nersessian (ed.) (1987). The Process of Science: Contemporary Philosophical Approaches to Understanding Scientific Practice. Distributors for the United States and Canada, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Michael Lynch (1993). Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science. Cambridge University Press.
G. Hardcastle (1999). Are There Scientific Goals? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 30 (3):297-311.
James T. Cushing (1982). Models and Methodologies in Current Theoretical High-Energy Physics. Synthese 50 (1):5 - 101.
Howard Sankey (2000). Methodological Pluralism, Normative Naturalism and the Realist Aim of Science. In Howard Sankey & Robert Nola (eds.), After Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend: Recent Issues in Theories of Scientific Method.
Steffen Ducheyne (2010). Whewell's Tidal Researches: Scientific Practice and Philosophical Methodology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (1):26-40.
Jutta Schickore (2012). What Does History Matter to Philosophy of Science? The Concept of Replication and the Methodology of Experiments. Journal of the Philosophy of History 5 (3):513-532.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #163,400 of 1,099,868 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #127,115 of 1,099,868 )
How can I increase my downloads?