David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Economic Methodology 9 (2):141-168 (2002)
Can successful science accommodate a realistic view of scientific motivation? The Received View in theory of science has a theory of scientific success but no theory of scientific motivation. Critical Science Studies has a theory of scientific motivation but denies any prospect for (epistemologically meaningful) scientific success. Neither can answer the question because both regard the question as immaterial. Arguing from the premise that an adequate theory of science needs both a theory of scientific motivation, and a theory of scientific success, I make a case for seeing science as a kind of invisible-hand process. After distinguishing different and often confused conceptions of invisible-hand processes, I focus on scientific rules, treated as emergent responses to various coordination failures in the production and distribution of reliable knowledge. Scientific rules, and the means for their enforcement, constitute the invisible-hand mechanism, so that scientific rules (sometimes) induce interested scientific actors with worldly goals to make epistemically good choices.
|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
K. Brad Wray (2000). Invisible Hands and the Success of Science. Philosophy of Science 67 (1):163-175.
Eugene Heath (1992). Rules, Function, and the Invisible Hand an Interpretation of Hayek's Social Theory. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 22 (1):28-45.
David L. Hull (1997). What's Wrong with Invisible-Hand Explanations? Philosophy of Science 64 (4):126.
Jesús P. Zamora Bonilla (2005). Truthlikeness with a Human Face: On Some Connections Between the Theory of Verisimilitude and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 83 (1):361-369.
David B. Resnik (1993). Do Scientific Aims Justify Methodological Rules? Erkenntnis 38 (2):223 - 232.
Gerald Doppelt (1990). The Naturalist Conception of Methodological Standards in Science: A Critique. Philosophy of Science 57 (1):1-19.
Kenneth F. Schaffner (1969). Correspondence Rules. Philosophy of Science 36 (3):280-290.
Miriam Solomon (1994). Multivariate Models of Scientific Change. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:287 - 297.
Peter Achinstein (ed.) (2004). Science Rules: A Historical Introduction to Scientific Methods. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Jonathan Y. Tsou (2006). Genetic Epistemology and Piaget's Philosophy of Science: Piaget Vs. Kuhn on Scientific Progress. Theory and Psychology 16 (2):203-224.
Martin Carrier & Jürgen Mittelstrass (1990). The Unity of Science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4 (1):17-31.
Sr Copeland (1966). Mathematical Proof and Experimental Proof. Philosophy of Science 33 (4):303-.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-02-20
Total downloads1 ( #402,963 of 1,096,462 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #238,630 of 1,096,462 )
How can I increase my downloads?