David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 25 (4):327-349 (2011)
This article criticizes the attempts by Bas van Fraassen and Michael Friedman to address the challenge to rationality posed by the Kuhnian analysis of scientific revolutions. In the paper, I argue that van Fraassen's solution, which invokes a Sartrean theory of emotions to account for radical change, does not amount to justifying rationally the advancement of science but, rather, despite his protestations to the contrary, is an explanation of how change is effected. Friedman's approach, which appeals to philosophical developments at a meta-theoretical level, does not really address the problem of rationality as posed by Kuhn's work. Instead of showing how, despite revolutions, scientific development is, indeed, rational, he gives a transcendental account of rational scientific progress.
|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
Thomas S. Kuhn (1996/2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Immanuel Kant (1998). Critique of Pure Reason (Translated and Edited by Paul Guyer & Allen W. Wood). Cambridge.
I. Kant (1984). Critique of Pure Reason. Philosophy 59 (230):555-557.
Richard Rorty (1991). Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Cambridge University Press.
Thomas Kuhn (ed.) (2000). The Road Since Structure. University of Chicago Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Charles B. Cross (1991). Explanation and the Theory of Questions. Erkenntnis 34 (2):237 - 260.
Stathis Psillos (2007). Putting a Bridle on Irrationality : An Appraisal of Van Fraassen's New Epistemology. In Bradley John Monton (ed.), Images of Empiricism: Essays on Science and Stances, with a Reply From Bas C. Van Fraassen. Oxford University Press 288-319.
Maarten Van Dyck (2007). Constructive Empiricism and the Argument From Underdetermination. In Bradley John Monton (ed.), Images of Empiricism: Essays on Science and Stances, with a Reply From Bas C. Van Fraassen. Oxford University Press
Herman C. D. G. De Regt (2006). To Believe in Belief Popper and Van Fraassen on Scientific Realism. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 37 (1):21 - 39.
Bas C. Van Fraassen (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford University Press.
Alan W. Richardson & Thomas E. Uebel (2005). The Epistemic Agent in Logical Positivism. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 79:73-105.
Igor Douven (1996). A Paradox for Empiricism (?). Philosophy of Science 63 (3):297.
Brendan P. Minogue (1984). Van Fraassen's Semanticism. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:115 - 121.
K. Brad Wray (2007). Kuhnian Revolutions Revisited. Synthese 158 (1):61-73.
Bas C. Van Fraassen (2008). Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford University Press.
Jamin Asay (2013). Three Paradigms of Scientific Realism: A Truthmaking Account. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 27 (1):1-21.
F. A. Muller (2004). Can a Constructive Empiricist Adopt the Concept of Observability? Philosophy of Science 71 (1):80-97.
Patrick Maher (1990). Acceptance Without Belief. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:381-392.
Jeff Foss (1991). On Saving the Phenomena and the Mice: A Reply to Bourgeois Concerning Van Fraassen's Image of Science. Philosophy of Science 58 (2):278-287.
Added to index2011-12-10
Total downloads40 ( #90,416 of 1,781,480 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #295,005 of 1,781,480 )
How can I increase my downloads?