The Duhemian argument
Philosophy of Science 27 (1):75-87 (1960)
| Abstract | This paper offers a refutation of P. Duhem's thesis that the falsifiability of an isolated empirical hypothesis H as an explanans is unavoidably inconclusive. Its central contentions are the following: 1. No general features of the logic of falsifiability can assure, for every isolated empirical hypothesis H and independently of the domain to which it pertains, that H can always be preserved as an explanans of any empirical findings O whatever by some modification of the auxiliary assumptions A in conjunction with which H functions as an explanans. For Duhem cannot guarantee on any general logical grounds the deducibility of O from an explanans constituted by the conjunction of H and some revised non-trivial version R of A: the existence of the required set R of collateral assumptions must be demonstrated for each particular case. 2. The categorical form of the Duhemian thesis is not only a non-sequitur but actually false. This is shown by adducing the testing of physical geometry as a counterexample to Duhem in the form of a rebuttal to A. Einstein's geometrical articulation of Duhem's thesis. 3. The possibility of a quasi a priori choice of a physical geometry in the sense of Duhem must be clearly distinguished from the feasibility of a conventional adoption of such a geometry in the sense of H. Poincare. And the legitimacy of the latter cannot be invoked to save the Duhemian thesis from refutation by the foregoing considerations | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| ISBN(s) | 90-277-0629-8 | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesGuillermo Rosado Haddock (2012). Husserl's Conception of Physical Theories and Physical Geometry in the Time of the Prolegomena : A Comparison with Duhem's and Poincaré's Views. Axiomathes 22 (1):171-193.
Deborah G. Mayo (1997). Duhem's Problem, the Bayesian Way, and Error Statistics, or "What's Belief Got to Do with It?". Philosophy of Science 64 (2):222-244.
Wolfgang Pietsch, Defending Underdetermination or Why the Historical Perspective Makes a Difference.
Gary Wedeking (1969). Duhem, Quine and Grünbaum on Falsification. Philosophy of Science 36 (4):375-380.
George Krzywicki Herburt (1959). The Analytic and the Synthetic. The Duhemian Argument and Some Contemporary Philosophers. Philosophy of Science 26 (2):104-113.
Don Howard (1990). Einstein and Duhem. Synthese 83 (3):363 - 384.
Philip L. Quinn (1969). The Status of the D-Thesis. Philosophy of Science 36 (4):381-399.
Paul Needham (1991). Duhem and Cartwright on the Truth of Laws. Synthese 89 (1):89 - 109.
K. M. Darling (2002). The Complete Duhemian Underdetermination Argument: Scientific Language and Practice. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (3):511-533.
Arthur B. Millman (1990). Falsification and Grünbaum's Duhemian Theses. Synthese 82 (1):23 - 52.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads7 ( #133,420 of 549,070 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,252 of 549,070 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
