Perspectives on Science 15 (3):359-390 (2007)

Authors
Peter Achinstein
Johns Hopkins University
Abstract
: This paper examines the debate in the late 19th and early 20th centuries over the acceptability of atomic and molecular physics. It focuses on three prominent figures: Maxwell, who defended atomic physics, Ostwald, who initially rejected it but changed his mind as a result of experiments by Thomson and Perrin, and Duhem, who never accepted it. Each scientist defended the position he did in the light of strongly held methodological views concerning empirical evidence. The paper critically evaluates each of these methodological positions
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1162/posc.2007.15.3.359
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 60,878
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Representing and Intervening.Ian Hacking - 1984 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35 (4):381-390.
Representing and Intervening.Ian Hacking - 1987 - Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 92 (2):279-279.
The Book of Evidence.Peter Achinstein - 2001 - Oxford University Press.
Cathode Rays.J. J. Thomson - 2010 - Philosophical Magazine 90 (sup1):25-29.

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Conventionalism About What? Where Duhem and Poincaré Part Ways.Milena Ivanova - 2015 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 54:80-89.
Did Perrin’s Experiments Convert Poincaré to Scientific Realism?Milena Ivanova - 2013 - Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 3 (1):1-19.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Simplicity in Econometric Modelling: Some Methodological Considerations.Bernd Hayo - 1998 - Journal of Economic Methodology 5 (2):247-261.
Die Atomistik bei Ludwig Boltzmann. Zur wissenschaftlichen und philosophischen Bedeutung einer kontroversen Position am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts.Juan Tutor - 2004 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 35 (2):371-384.
Methodological Naturalism and its Misconceptions.Tiddy Smith - 2017 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 82 (3):321-336.
Methodological Naturalism and the Truth Seeking Objection.Erkki Vesa Rope Kojonen - 2017 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 81 (3):335-355.
The Empirical Character of Methodological Rules.Warren Schmaus - 1996 - Philosophy of Science 63 (5):S98-S106.
The Empirical Character of Methodological Rules.Warren Schmaus - 1996 - Philosophy of Science 63 (3):106.
Empirical Physicalism and the Boundaries of Physics.Michele Paolini Paoletti - 2017 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 31 (4):343-362.
Evidence, Ontology, and Psychological Science: The Lesson of Hypnosis.Brian R. Vandenberg - 2010 - Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 30 (1):51-65.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
78 ( #133,877 of 2,439,014 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #434,623 of 2,439,014 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes