Prescription Versus Description in Philosophy of Science, or Methodology Versus History: a Critical Assessment

Metaphilosophy 17 (4):289-299 (1986)
This paper examines critically the current state of affairs in philosophy of science. It focuses on the well-Known puzzle about the relationship between the normative prescriptive methodology of science and positive descriptive history of science. This puzzle has dogged philosophers of science for over a generation and is still controversial. My conclusion is that there is really no escape from it. The best way to characterize it is as follows: "philosophy of science without history of science is empty; history of science without philosophy of science is blind."
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9973.1986.tb00391.x
 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: 16,667
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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Nader Chokr (1993). Replies to Critics. Social Epistemology 7 (4):369 – 386.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

7 ( #304,000 of 1,726,249 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #369,877 of 1,726,249 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

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