David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 179 (3):361 - 376 (2011)
In this paper I consider two accounts of scientific discovery, Robert Hudson's and Peter Achinstein's. I assess their relative success and I show that while both approaches are similar in promising ways, and address experimental discoveries well, they could address the concerns of the discovery sceptic more explicitly than they do. I also explore the implications of their inability to address purely theoretical discoveries, such as those often made in mathematical physics. I do so by showing that extending Hudson's or Achinstein's account to such cases can sometimes provide a misleading analysis about who ought to be credited as a discoverer. In the final sections of the paper I work out some revisions to the Hudson/Achinstein account by drawing from a so-called structural realist view of theory change. Finally, I show how such a modified account of discovery can answer sceptical critics such as Musgrave or Woolgar without producing misleading analyses about who ought to receive credit as a discoverer in cases from the mathematical sciences. I illustrate the usefulness of this approach by providing an analysis of the case of the discovery of the Casimir effect
|Keywords||Discovery Hudson Achinstein Casimir effect Structural realism Semirealism Scientific realism|
|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
John Worrall (1989). Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds? Dialectica 43 (1-2):99-124.
Anjan Chakravartty (2007). A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservable. Cambridge University Press.
Steven French & James Ladyman (2003). Remodelling Structural Realism: Quantum Physics and the Metaphysics of Structure. [REVIEW] Synthese 136 (1):31-56.
J. Ladyman (1998). What is Structural Realism? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 29 (3):409-424.
David Zaret (1977). The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. [REVIEW] Philosophical Review 90 (1):146-149.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Milena Ivanova (2011). Friedman's Relativised A Priori and Structural Realism: In Search of Compatibility. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 25 (1):23 - 37.
Dan McArthur (2008). Theory Change, Structural Realism, and the Relativised a Priori. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (1):5 – 20.
Otávio Bueno (2008). Structural Realism, Scientific Change, and Partial Structures. Studia Logica 89 (2):213 - 235.
Daniel McArthur (2006). Recent Debates Over Structural Realism. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 37 (2):209 - 224.
Mario Alai (2004). A.I., Scientific Discovery and Realism. Minds and Machines 14 (1):21-42.
Wei-Min Shen (1995). The Process of Discovery. Foundations of Science 1 (2):233-251.
David Castle (2001). A Gradualist Theory of Discovery in Ecology. Biology and Philosophy 16 (4):547-571.
Robert G. Hudson (2001). Discoveries, When and by Whom? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (1):75-93.
Added to index2009-10-10
Total downloads51 ( #83,315 of 1,906,796 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #200,756 of 1,906,796 )
How can I increase my downloads?