Abstract
Thomas Nickles challenges my thesis that innovative discoveries can be based on deliberately chosen problems and research strategies. He suggests that all significant innovation can be seen as such only in retrospect and that its generation must be serendipitous. Here I argue in response that significant innovations can and do often arise from self conscious critical appraisal of orthodox practice combined with regulated though speculative abductive argumentation to alternative explanatory schemata. Orthodox practice is not based upon monolithic systems of belief about the subject of inquiry. Rather major domains of scientific practice often are approached from different conceptualizations that provide grounds for critical dialectic and consilient empirical information. Abductive arguments that meet appropriate conditions of likelihood, probability and analogy are an important means of justifying allocating resources to innovative practices that have yet to produce products that can rival those of established orthodoxy.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alston, W.: 1976, ‘Has Foundationalism Been Refuted?’ Philosophical Studies 29, 287–305.
DeBeer, G.R.: 1951, Embryos and Ancestors, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.
Feyerabend, P.K.: 1974, Against Method, Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands.
Glymour, C.:1980, Theory and Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Griffiths, P.E. and Gray, R.D.: 1994, ‘Developmental Systems and Evolutionary Explanation’, Journal of Philosophy XCI, 277–304.
Goldschmidt, R.: 1940, The Material Basis of Evolution, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Gould, S.: 1977, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Gould, S. and Lewontin, R.: 1979, ‘The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm — A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 205, 581–598.
Jablonka, E. and Lamb, M.: 1995, Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: The Lamarckian Dimension, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Hanson, N.R.: 1961a, Patterns of Discovery, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Hanson, N.R.: 1961b, ‘Is There a Logic of Scientific Discovery?’ in H. Feigl and G. Maxwell (eds.), Current Issues in the Philosophy of Science, Holt Reinhart and Winston, New York.
Kantorovitch, A. and Neleman, Y.: 1989, ‘Serendipity As a Source of Evolutionary Progress in Science’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 20, 505–530.
Kepler, J.: 1981, Mysterium Cosmographicum: The Secret of the Universe, trans. A.M. Duncan. Abaris Books, New York, NY.
Kleiner, S.A.: 1985b, ‘Darwin's and Wallace's Revolutionary Research Programme,’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 36, 367–392.
Kleiner, S.A.: 1990, ‘The Logic of Discovery and Darwin's Pre-Malthusian Researches’, Biology and Philosophy 3, 293–315.
Kleiner, S.: 1993, The Logic of Discovery: A Theory of the Rationality of Scientific Research, Kluwer Acdemic Press, Boston, MA.
Koestler, A.:1960, The Watershed, Anchor Books, New York, NY.
Kuhn, T.S.: 1959, The Copernican Revolution, Random House, New York, NY.
Lovtrup, S.: 1987, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, Coom Helm, New York, NY.
Nickles, T.: 1997, ‘Methods of Discovery’, Biology and Philosophy 12, 127–140.
Nozick, R.: 1981, Philosophical Explanations, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Oyama, S.: 1985, The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Sulloway, F.: 1982a, ‘Darwin and His Finches: The Evolution of a Legend’, Journal of the History of Biology 15, 1–53.
Sulloway, F.: 1982b, ‘Darwin's Conversion: The Beagle Voyage and It's Aftermath’, Journal of the History of Biology 15, 325–396.
Wright, L.: 1989, Practical Reasoning, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, NY.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kleiner, S.A. Serendipity and Vision: Two Methods for Discovery Comments on Nickles. Biology & Philosophy 14, 55–63 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006550216230
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006550216230