History and scientific practice in the construction of an adequate philosophy of science: revisiting a Whewell/Mill debate

Abstract
William Whewell raised a series of objections concerning John Stuart Mill’s philosophy of science which suggested that Mill’s views were not properly informed by the history of science or by adequate reflection on scientific practices. The aim of this paper is to revisit and evaluate this incisive Whewellian criticism of Mill’s views by assessing Mill’s account of Michael Faraday’s discovery of electrical induction. The historical evidence demonstrates that Mill’s reconstruction is an inadequate reconstruction of this historical episode and the scientific practices Faraday employed. But a study of Faraday’s research also raises some questions about Whewell’s characterization of this discovery. Thus, this example provides an opportunity to reconsider the debate between Whewell and Mill concerning the role of the sciences in the development of an adequate philosophy of scientific methodology.Keywords: Inductivism; Experiment; Theory; Methodology; Electromagnetism
Keywords J.S. Mill  William Whewell  History of the Philosophy of Science  Michael Faraday
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.11.022
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
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
John Stuart Mill on Induction and Hypotheses.Struan Jacobs - 1991 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 29 (1):69-83.
Experiment, Speculation and Law: Faraday's Analysis of Arago's Wheel.Friedrich Steinle - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:293 - 303.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Galilean Argumentation and the Inauthenticity of the Cigoli Letter on Painting Vs. Sculpture.Maurice A. Finocchiaro - 2011 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42 (4):492-508.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Whewell's Tidal Researches: Scientific Practice and Philosophical Methodology.Steffen Ducheyne - 2010 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (1):26-40.
Inference to the Best Explanation: Or, Who Won the Mill-Whewell Debate?Peter Achinstein - 1992 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 23 (2):349-364.
William Whewell and John Stuart Mill on the Methodology of Political Economy.Samuel Hollander - 1983 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 14 (2):127-168.
William Whewell: Problems of Induction Vs. Problems of Rationality.John Wettersten - 1994 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (2):716-742.
Whewell and Mill on the Relation Between Philosophy of Science and History of Science.John Losee - 1983 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 14 (2):113-126.
Quantitative Realizations of Philosophy of Science: William Whewell and Statistical Methods.Kent Johnson - 2011 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42 (3):399-409.
Whewell and Mill on Induction.Harold T. Walsh - 1962 - Philosophy of Science 29 (3):279-284.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-05-22

Total downloads

371 ( #6,779 of 2,152,002 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

61 ( #3,334 of 2,152,002 )

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