David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4 (3):305 – 319 (1990)
Abstract This paper attempts to clarify the debate between those philosophers who hold that the development of science is governed by objective standards of rationality and those sociologists of science who deny this. In particular it focuses on the debate over the ?symmetry thesis?. Bloor and Barnes argue that a properly scientific approach to science itself demands that an investigator should seek the same general type of explanation for all decisions and actions by past scientists, quite independently of whether or not she or he happens to agree with those decisions or approve those actions as ?correct? or ?rational?. I try to improve on previous treatments of the ?rationalist? position (by Lakatos, Laudan, Newton?Smith and Brown) and clarify the exact asymmetries to which the ?rationalist? is, and is not, committed
|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
L. Laudan (1977). Progress and its Problems: Toward a Theory of Scientific Growth. University of California Press.
David Bloor (1991). Knowledge and Social Imagery. University of Chicago Press.
Larry Laudan (1984). Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate. University of California Press.
John Worrall (1988). The Value of a Fixed Methodology. [REVIEW] British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39 (2):263-275.
John Worrall (1989). Fix It and Be Damned: A Reply to Laudan. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40 (3):376-388.
Citations of this work BETA
Nicholas Shackel (2005). The Vacuity of Postmodernist Methodology. Metaphilosophy 36 (3):295-320.
Adrian Haddock (2004). Rethinking the “Strong Programme” in the Sociology of Knowledge. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 35 (1):19-40.
Similar books and articles
Stephen J. Wykstra (1982). Curried Lakatos or, How Not to Spice Up the Norm-Ladenness Thesis. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:29 - 39.
David Henderson (2010). Explanation and Rationality Naturalized. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 40 (1):30-58.
James H. Fetzer (1974). Grünbaum's 'Defense' of the Symmetry Thesis. Philosophical Studies 25 (3):173 - 187.
Paul Hoyningen-Huene (1992). The Interrelations Between the Philosophy, History and Sociology of Science in Thomas Kuhn's Theory of Scientific Development. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43 (4):487-501.
Howard Sankey (1996). Normative Naturalism and the Challenge of Relativism: Laudan Versus Worrall on the Justification of Methodological Principles. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 10 (1):37 – 51.
John Wettersten (1994). William Whewell: Problems of Induction Vs. Problems of Rationality. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (2):716-742.
Michael Kruse (2000). Invariance, Symmetry and Rationality. Synthese 122 (3):337-357.
Samir Okasha (2000). The Underdetermination of Theory by Data and the "Strong Programme" in the Sociology of Knowledge. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 14 (3):283 – 297.
Richard C. Jennings (1984). Truth, Rationality and the Sociology of Science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35 (3):201-211.
Márta Fehér (1998). Bad Arguments Against a Good Case (Laudan's Attack on the Strong Programme). International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (3):233-238.
Added to index2009-02-01
Total downloads16 ( #220,434 of 1,792,148 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #464,595 of 1,792,148 )
How can I increase my downloads?