David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 52 (2):177-206 (1985)
Does the viability of the discovery program depend on showing either (1) that methods of generating new problem solutions, per se, have special probative weight (the per se thesis); or, (2) that the original conception of an idea is logically continuous with its justification (anti-divorce thesis)? Many writers have identified these as the key issues of the discovery debate. McLaughlin, Pera, and others recently have defended the discovery program by attacking the divorce thesis, while Laudan has attacked the discovery program by rejecting the per se thesis. This disagreement over the central issue has led to communication breakdown. I contend that both friends and foes of discovery mistake the central issues. Recognizing a form of divorce helps rather than hurts the discovery program. However, the per se thesis is not essential to the program (nor is the related debate over novel prediction); hence, the status of the per se thesis is a side issue. With these clarifications in hand, we can proceed to the next stage of the discovery debate--the development (or revival) of a generative conception of justification which goes beyond consequentialism to forge a strong linkage of generation (or rather, generatability) with justification
|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
Jutta Schickore (2011). More Thoughts on HPS: Another 20 Years Later. Perspectives on Science 19 (4):453-481.
Peter P. Kirschenmann (1991). Local and Normative Rationality of Science: The 'Content of Discovery' Rehabilitated. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 22 (1):61-72.
Brian S. Baigrie (1990). The Justification of Kepler's Ellipse. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 21 (4):633-664.
Alan G. Gross (1998). Do Disputes Over Priority Tell Us Anything About Science? Science in Context 11 (2):161.
James Blachowicz (1987). Discovery as Correction. Synthese 71 (3):235 - 321.
Similar books and articles
Samet Bagce (2011). Reichenbach on the Relative a Priori and the Context of Discovery/Justification Distinction. Synthese 181 (1):79 - 93.
Carl R. Kordig (1978). Discovery and Justification. Philosophy of Science 45 (1):110-117.
James Blachowicz (1989). Discovery and Ampliative Inference. Philosophy of Science 56 (3):438-462.
Piotr Giza (2002). Automated Discovery Systems and Scientific Realism. Minds and Machines 12 (1):105-117.
Mehul Shah (2008). The Logics of Discovery in Popper's Evolutionary Epistemology. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 39 (2):303 - 319.
Angelo M. Petroni (1993). Conventionalism, Scientific Discovery and the Sociology of Knowledge. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7 (3):225 – 240.
Claude Savary (1995). Discovery and its Logic: Popper and the "Friends of Discovery". Philosophy of the Social Sciences 25 (3):318-344.
Jan M. Zytkow & Herbert A. Simon (1988). Normative Systems of Discovery and Logic of Search. Synthese 74 (1):65 - 90.
Mehul Shah (2007). Is It Justifiable to Abandon All Search for a Logic of Discovery? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21 (3):253 – 269.
Robert McLaughlin (1982). Invention and Induction Laudan, Simon and the Logic of Discovery. Philosophy of Science 49 (2):198-211.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads24 ( #112,516 of 1,699,820 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #206,271 of 1,699,820 )
How can I increase my downloads?