David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Nature 265 (January 6):2 (1977)
Most scientists and philosophers of science take for granted the standard empiricist view that the basic intellectual aim of science is truth per se. But this seriously misrepresents the aims of scieince. Actually, science seeks explanatory truth and, more generally, important truth. Problematic metaphysical and value assumptions are inherent in the real aims of science. Precisely because these aims are profoundly problematic, they need to be articulated, imaginatively explored and critically assesseed, in order to improve them, as an integral part of science itself. This was how Einstein did science in developing the special and general theories of relativity. Science needs to put a new aim-oriented empiricist methodology into practice.
|Keywords||Aims of science Philosophy of science Science and values Scientific method|
|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
Nicholas Maxwell (2005). Science Under Attack. The Philosopher’s Magazine (31, 3rd Quarter 2005):37-41.
Nicholas Maxwell (2008). Do We Need a Scientific Revolution? Journal for Biological Physics and Chemistry 8 (3):95-105.
Kareem Khalifa (2010). Social Constructivism and the Aims of Science. Social Epistemology 24 (1):45 – 61.
Michael Strevens (2006). Scientific Explanation. In D. M. Borchert (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, second edition.
Nicholas Maxwell (2006). The Enlightenment Programme and Karl Popper. In I. I. Jarvie, K. Milford & D. Miller (eds.), Karl Popper: A Centenary Assessment. Volume 1: Life and Times, Values in a World of Facts. Ashgate.
Ingo Brigandt (2012). The Dynamics of Scientific Concepts: The Relevance of Epistemic Aims and Values. In Uljana Feest & Friedrich Steinle (eds.), Scientific Concepts and Investigative Practice. de Gruyter. 3--75.
Wenceslao J. González (2008). Economic Values in the Configuration of Science. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 96 (1):85-112.
Nicholas Maxwell (2004). Is Science Neurotic? Imperial College Press.
Nicholas Maxwell (1974). The Rationality of Scientific Discovery Part 1: The Traditional Rationality Problem. Philosophy of Science 41 (2):123--53.
Patrick Suppes (1986). Book Review:Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate Larry Laudan. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 53 (3):449-.
David B. Resnik (1993). Do Scientific Aims Justify Methodological Rules? Erkenntnis 38 (2):223 - 232.
Janet A. Kourany (2008). Philosophy of Science: A Subject with a Great Future. Philosophy of Science 75 (5):767-778.
Nicholas Maxwell (1974). The Rationality of Scientific Discovery Part I: The Traditional Rationality Problem. Philosophy of Science 41 (2):123-153.
Noretta Koertge (2000). Science, Values, and the Value of Science. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):57.
Added to index2011-03-15
Total downloads65 ( #22,156 of 1,098,992 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #27,186 of 1,098,992 )
How can I increase my downloads?