What Concept Analysis in Philosophy of Science Should Be

Abstract
What should philosophers of science accomplish when they analyze scientific concepts and interpret scientific knowledge? What is concept analysis if it is not a description of the way scientists actually think? I investigate these questions by using Hans Reichenbach's account of the descriptive, critical, and advisory tasks of philosophy of science to examine Karola Stotz and Paul Griffiths' idea that poll-based methodologies can test philosophical analyses of scientific concepts. Using Reichenbach's account as a point of departure, I argue that philosophy of science should identify and clarify epistemic virtues and describe scientific knowledge in relation to these virtues. The role of concept analysis is to articulate scientific concepts in ways that help reveal epistemic virtues and limitations of particular sciences. This means an analysis of the gene concept should help clarify the explanatory power and limitations of gene-based explanations, and should help account for the investigative utility and biases of gene-centered sciences. I argue that a philosophical analysis of gene concept that helps achieve these critical aims should not be rejected on the basis of poll-based studies even if such studies could show that professional biologists don't actually use gene terminology in precise ways corresponding to the philosophical analysis
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 27,636
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Artificial Language Philosophy of Science.Sebastian Lutz - 2012 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science (Browse Results) 2 (2):181–203.
Experimental Philosophy of Biology: Notes From the Field.Karola Stotz - 2009 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (2):233-237.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Experimental Philosophy of Science.Paul E. Griffiths & Karola Stotz - 2008 - Philosophy Compass 3 (3):507–521.
The Referential Convergence of Gene Concepts Based on Classical and Molecular Analyses.Tudor M. Baetu - 2010 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24 (4):411-427.
Genes Made Molecular.C. Kenneth Waters - 1994 - Philosophy of Science 61 (2):163-185.
On the Concept of Sexual Perversion.Kristie Miller - 2010 - Philosophical Quarterly 60 (241):808-830.
Mathematical and Philosophical Analyses.Robert Rogers - 1964 - Philosophy of Science 31 (3):255-264.
Genes: Philosophical Analyses Put to the Test.Karola Stotz & Paul Griffiths - 2004 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 26 (1):5-28.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2010-08-10

Total downloads

74 ( #70,876 of 2,169,144 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

3 ( #126,686 of 2,169,144 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums