Being Charitable to Scientific Controversies: On the Demonstrativity of Newton's Experimentum crucis
The Monist 93 (4):640-656 (2010)
| Abstract | Current philosophical reflections on science have departed from mainstream history of science with respect to both methodology and conclusions. The article investigates how different approaches to reconstructing commitments can explain these differences and facilitate a mutual understanding and communication of these two perspectives on science. Translating the differences into problems pertaining to principles of charity, the paper offers a platform for clarification and resolution of the differences between the two perspectives. The outlined contextual approach occupies a middle ground between mainstream history and sociology of science, bracketing questions of rationality, and individual coherence-maximizing, rationality-centered approaches. It can satisfy those, who believe that science is an epistemically privileged endeavor, and its epistemic content should not be neglected when reconstructing the scientists’ positions. It can also satisfy those who hold that it is naive to believe that the immediate context, e.g. the challenges to a theory, the expectations of the author about his audience, etc., does not affect the position a scientist takes. Its theoretical considerations are exemplified with a close study of the debate following the 1672 publication of Newton's theory of light and colours, also offering a novel reading of the development of his methodological views concerning the demonstrativity of the famous crucial experiment. Although we only show the capacity of the framework to analyze a direct controversy, given that it is hard to think about any scientific text as detached from an argumentative context, this approach has the potential to be a general guide for interpretation. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,631 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesT. Shanahan (2001). Methodological and Contextual Factors in the Dawkins/Gould Dispute Over Evolutionary Progress. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 32 (1):127-151.
John Worrall (1990). Rationality, Sociology and the Symmetry Thesis. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4 (3):305 – 319.
Peter K. Machamer, Marcello Pera & Aristeidēs Baltas (eds.) (2000). Scientific Controversies: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives. Oxford University Press.
Otavio Bueno & Newton da Costa (2007). Quasi-Truth, Paraconsistency, and the Foundations of Science. Synthese 154 (3):383 - 399.
Sven Dupré (2008). Newton's Telescope in Print: The Role of Images in the Reception of Newton's Instrument. Perspectives on Science 16 (4):pp. 328-359.
Maurizio Mamiani (2000). The Structure of a Scientific Controversy: Hooke Versus Newton About Colors. In Scientific Controversies: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives. Oxford University Press.
Gábor Á Zemplén & Tamás Demeter (2010). Being Charitable to Scientific Controversies. The Monist 93 (4):640-656.
Ronald Laymon (1978). Newton's Experimentum Crucis and the Logic of Idealization and Theory Refutation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 9 (1):51-77.
James A. Marcum (2009). The Nature of Light and Color: Goethe's “der Versuch AlS Vermittler” Versus Newton's Experimentum Crucis. Perspectives on Science 17 (4):pp. 457-481.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-03-31Total downloads18 ( #67,448 of 548,973 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,438 of 548,973 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
