David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 69 (2):191-211 (2002)
This essay considers the nature of conceptual frameworks in science, and suggests a reconsideration of the role played by philosophy in radical conceptual change. On Kuhn's view of conceptual conflict, the scientist's appeal to philosophical principles is an obvious symptom of incommensurability; philosophical preferences are merely “subjective factors” that play a part in the “necessarily circular” arguments that scientists offer for their own conceptual commitments. Recent work by Friedman has persuasively challenged this view, revealing the roles that philosophical concerns have played in preparing the way for conceptual change, creating an enlarged conceptual space in which alternatives to the prevailing framework become intelligible and can be rationally discussed. If we shift our focus from philosophical themes or preferences to the process of philosophical analysis, however, we can see philosophy in a different and much more significant historic role: not merely as an external source of general heuristic principles and new conceptual possibilities, but, at least in the most important revolutionary developments, as an objective tool of scientific inquiry. I suggest that this approach offers some insight into the philosophical significance of Newton's and Einstein's revolutionary work in physics, and of the interpretation of their work by (respectively) Kant and the logical positivists. It also offers insight into the connections between modern philosophy of science and some traditional philosophical concerns about the nature of a priori knowledge.
|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
Jonathan Y. Tsou (2010). Putnam's Account of Apriority and Scientific Change: Its Historical and Contemporary Interest. Synthese 176 (3):429-445.
Jonathan Y. Tsou (2003). A Role for Reason in Science. Dialogue 42 (3):573-598.
Kenneth R. Westphal (2013). Rational Justification and Mutual Recognition in Substantive Domains. Dialogue:1-40.
Similar books and articles
J. C. Pinto de Oliveira, Carnap, Kuhn, and Revisionism (II): On "Structure" and the Philosophical Change.
Peter Ospald (2010). Michael Friedmans Behandlung Des unterschieDes Zwischen Arithmetik Und Algebra Bei Kant in Kant and the Exact Sciences. Kant-Studien 101 (1):75-88.
Sami Pihlström & Arto Siitonen (2005). The Transcendental Method and (Post-)Empiricist Philosophy of Science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 36 (1):81 - 106.
Karin de Boer (2011). Kant, Reichenbach, and the Fate of A Priori Principles. European Journal of Philosophy 19 (4):507-531.
Michael Friedman & Graham Bird (1998). Kantian Themes in Contemporary Philosophy. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 72 (1):111–130.
Michael Friedman (2002). Kant, Kuhn, and the Rationality of Science. Philosophy of Science 69 (2):171-90.
Michael Friedman (2001). Dynamics of Reason: The 1999 Kant Lectures at Stanford University. Csli Publications.
Robert DiSalle (2006). Understanding Space-Time: The Philosophical Development of Physics From Newton to Einstein. Cambridge University Press.
Michael Friedman (1999). Reconsidering Logical Positivism. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads73 ( #19,515 of 1,102,925 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #29,626 of 1,102,925 )
How can I increase my downloads?