Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Wissenschaftstheoretischer Diskurs

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Mill-Handbuch

  • 153 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

John Stuart Mills Wissenschaftstheorie wird von den meisten Autoren mit wenig Wohlwollen betrachtet. Mills Vorstellungen der Ziele und Methoden der empirischen Wissenschaften, die er in seinem A System of Logic darstellte, werden sowohl für einfältig als auch für realitätsfern gehalten. Einfältig, weil die von Mill skizzierten empirischen Methoden bei näherer philosophischer Betrachtung unschlüssig und kraftlos erscheinen. Realitätsfern, weil Mill angeblich die Vertrautheit mit der Geschichte und Praxis der Wissenschaften fehlte, die Voraussetzung für eine erfolgreiche philosophische Analyse gewesen wäre. Im Licht der jüngeren Wissenschaftsforschung ist allerdings in vielen Punkten eine günstigere Beurteilung der Mill’schen Position möglich, als traditionellerweise angeboten wird.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Achinstein, Peter: Inference to the Best Explanation: Or, Who Won the Mill-Whewell Debate? In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23/2 (1992), 349–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel, William: Discovering Cell Mechanisms: The Creation of Modern Cell Biology. Cambridge 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, Claude: Introduction à l’étude de La médecine Expérimentale. Paris 1865.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, Aaron D.: History and Scientific Practice in the Construction of an Adequate Philosophy of Science: Revisiting a Whewell/Mill Debate. In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42/1 (2011), 85–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, Aaron D.: Inductivism in Practice: Experiment in John Herschel’s Philosophy of Science. In: HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 2/1 (2012), 21–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craver, Carl F./Lindley Darden: In Search of Mechanisms: Discoveries Across the Life Sciences. Chicago/London 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douven, Igor: The Art of Abduction. Cambridge (MA)/London 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducheyne, Steffen: J. S. Mill’s Canons of Induction: From True Causes to Provisional Ones. In: History and Philosophy of Logic 29/4 (2008), 361–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forster, Malcolm: The Debate between Whewell and Mill on the Nature of Scientific Induction. Handbook of the History of Logic. Volume 10: Inductive Logic. Hg. von Dov M. Gabbay, Stephan Hartmann, John Woods. Elsevier 2011, 93–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glennan, Stuart: The New Mechanical Philosophy. Oxford 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, Ian: Do We See Through a Microscope? In: Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 62 (1981), 305–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, Carl G.: Philosophy of Natural Science. Upper Saddle River, NJ 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herschel, John F. W.: Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy. London: 1830.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, Struan: Misunderstanding John Stuart Mill on Science: Paul Feyerabend’s Bad Influence. In. The Social Science Journal 40/2 (2003), 201–212; https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/s0362-3319(03)00004-1 (23.03.2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange, Marc: Bayesianism and Unification: A Reply to Wayne Myrvold. In: Philosophy of Science 71/2 (2004), 205–215; https://www.jstor.org/stable/https://doi.org/10.1086/383012 (23.03.2023).

  • Laudan, Larry: Theories of Scientific Method from Plato to Mach: A Bibliographical Review. In: History of Science 7/1 (1968), 1–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, Larry: A Confutation of Convergent Realism. In: Philosophy of Science 48/1 (1981a), 19–49; http://www.jstor.org/stable/187066 (23.03.2023).

  • Laudan, Larry: Science and Hypothesis: Historical Essays on Scientific Methodology. The University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht 1981b.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Hanti: Bayesian Epistemology. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Hg. von Edward N. Zalta, Uri Nodelman (Fall 2022 Edition); https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/epistemology-bayesian/ (23.03.2023).

  • Lipton, Peter: Inference to the Best Explanation. London/New York 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipton, Peter: Inference to the Best Explanation. London/New York 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, Elisabeth A.: Feyerabend, Mill, and Pluralism. In: Philosophy of Science 64/4 (1997), 396–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackie, John L.: The Cement of the Universe: A Study of Causation. Oxford 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, J. Rosser: Quantification and the Quest for Medical Certainty. Princeton, NJ 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myrvold, Wayne C.: A Bayesian Account of the Virtue of Unification. In: Philosophy of Science 70/2 (2003), 399–423; https://www.jstor.org/stable/https://doi.org/10.1086/375475 (23.03.2023).

  • Newton, Isaac: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Editio Secunda Auctior Et Emendatior. Cambridge 1713; https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-1237 (23.03.2023).

  • Novick, Aaron/Scholl, Raphael: Presume It Not: True Causes in the Search for the Basis of Heredity. In: The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 71/1 (2020), 59–86; https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axy001 (23.03.2023).

  • Oreskes, Naomi: Why Trust Science? Princeton 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pocheville, Arnaud/Griffiths, Paul Edmund/Stotz, Karola C.: Comparing Causes: An Information-Theoretic Approach to Specificity, Proportionality and Stability. In: Proceedings of the 15th Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Hg. von Hannes Leitgeb, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Elliott Sober, Päivi Seppälä. London 2017, 260–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, Karl: Logik Der Forschung. Tübingen 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, Lauren N./Woodward, James F.: Koch’s Postulates: An Interventionist Perspective. In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 59 (2016), 35–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarre, Geoffrey: Mill on Induction and Scientific Method. In: John Skorupski (Hg.): The Cambridge Companion to Mill. Cambridge 1998, 112–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schickore, Jutta: About Method: Experimenters, Snake Venom, and the History of Writing Scientifically. Chicago 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schickore, Jutta: The Structure and Function of Experimental Control in the Life Sciences. In: Philosophy of Science 86/2 (2019), 203–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholl, Raphael: Causal Inference, Mechanisms, and the Semmelweis Case. In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44/1 (2013), 66–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholl, Raphael: Inference to the Best Explanation in the Catch-22: How Much Autonomy for Mill’s Method of Difference? In: European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5/1 (2015), 89–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholl, Raphael: Unwarranted Assumptions: Claude Bernard and the Growth of the Vera Causa Standard. In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 82 (2020), 120–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skorupski, John: John Stuart Mill. London 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, Laura J.: The Mill-Whewell Debate: Much Ado about Induction. In: Perspectives on Science 5/2 (1997), 159–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, Laura J.: Reforming Philosophy: A Victorian Debate on Science and Society. Chicago 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spirtes, Peter/Glymour, Clark N./Scheines, Richard: Causation, Prediction, and Search. Cambridge, Mass. 2001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Staley, Kent W.: Logic, Liberty, and Anarchy: Mill and Feyerabend on Scientific Method. In: The Social Science Journal 36/4 (1999), 603–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanford, P. K.: Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. Oxford 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Fraassen, Bas C.: Laws and Symmetry. Oxford 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waters, C. Kenneth: Causes That Make a Difference. In: The Journal of Philosophy 104/11 (2007), 551–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Marcel: Causal Selection Vs. Causal Parity in Biology: Relevant Counterfactuals and Biologically Normal Interventions. In: Philosophical Perspectives on Causal Reasoning in Biology. Hg. von C. Kenneth Waters, James Woodward. Minneapolis 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whewell, William: History of the Inductive Sciences, from the Earliest to the Present Times. London 1837.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whewell, William: The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, Founded Upon Their History. London 1840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whewell, William: The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, Founded Upon Their History. 2nd ed. London 1847.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whewell, William: Of Induction, with Especial Reference to Mr. J. Stuart Mill’s System of Logic. London 1849.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, James: Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, James: Causation in Biology: Stability, Specificity, and the Choice of Levels of Explanation. In: Biology & Philosophy 25/3 (2010), 287–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeo, Richard: Defining Science: William Whewell, Natural Knowledge and Public Debate in Early Victorian Britain. Cambridge 1993.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Department für Philosophie, Universität Genf, Genf, Schweiz

    Raphael Scholl

Authors
  1. Raphael Scholl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raphael Scholl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Lehrstuhl für Politikwissenschaft/Politische Theorie, Universität Augsburg, Augsburg, Bayern, Deutschland

    Frauke Höntzsch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Scholl, R. (2024). Wissenschaftstheoretischer Diskurs. In: Höntzsch, F. (eds) Mill-Handbuch. J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-05930-7_42

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-05930-7_42

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-476-05929-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-476-05930-7

  • eBook Packages: J.B. Metzler Humanities (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation