Reconstructed Science as Philosophical Evidence

Abstract
By using case studies from the history of science as evidence for its claims (and not, in contrast, merely to illustrate these claims), the philosophy of science can develop a more productive relation to its subject matter, the history of science. As might be expected, many problems involving the relation between theory and evidence in science reappear here as methodological problems about the relation between the philosophy of science and the history of science. For example, the most important of these difficulties involves the "contamination" of historical evidence by philosophical theories. The difficulty may be resolved as follows: the history of science is "theory-laden", but not necessarily with the solutions to the problems it poses for philosophers. As a result, case studies can be used to test our explanatory theories about science as long as those case studies have not yet been reconstructed by the theory they are meant to test. Furthermore, once an explanatory theory has been "well-supported", we can, using that theory, go on to reconstruct case studies. Such a theory would thereby take on the force of a normative claim about science, bypassing what has been viewed as a fundamental disjunction between the descriptive and normative function of theory. From this point of view, insistence on a single criterion of demarcation as a "ground" for philosophical claims is misguided, since it prejudges a still-open question--is science homogeneous?--that can only be answered by further investigation of science.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 10,612
External links
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
Similar books and articles
John Worrall (2010). Evidence: Philosophy of Science Meets Medicine. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16 (2):356-362.
David Baumslag (2000). How to Test Normative Theories of Science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 31 (2):267-275.
Peter J. Taylor (1994). Shifting Frames: From Divided to Distributed Psychologies of Scientific Agents. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:304 - 310.
Janet A. Kourany (1992). Towards a Female-Friendly Philosophy of Science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:320 - 332.
Marga Vicedo (1992). Is the History of Science Relevant to the Philosophy of Science? PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:490 - 496.
Jaakko Hintikka (1992). Theory-Ladenness of Observations as a Test Case of Kuhn's Approach to Scientific Inquiry. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:277 - 286.
B. D. (2000). A Pragmatic Approach to the Demarcation Problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 31 (2):249-267.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2011-05-29

Total downloads

5 ( #223,569 of 1,098,401 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #284,872 of 1,098,401 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.