The naturalist conception of methodological standards in science: A critique

Philosophy of Science 57 (1):1-19 (1990)
Abstract
In this essay, I criticize Laudan's view that methodological rules in science are best understood as hypothetical imperatives, for example, to realize cognitive aim A, follow method B. I criticize his idea that such rules are best evaluated by a naturalized philosophy of science which collects the empirical evidence bearing on the soundness of these rules. My claim is that this view yields a poor explanation of (1) the role of methodological rules in establishing the rationality of scientific practices, (2) the debates scientists have over rival methodological rules, and (3) the reasons on the basis of which scientists actually embrace, challenge, or transform methodological rules. A better explanation is provided by treating at least some methodological rules as foundational standards of theory-appraisal which define the criteria of scientific truth, knowledge, evidence, proof, explanations, etc., for a certain tradition or community of scientific practice. Such standards are in turn grounded or challenged on the basis of their coherence or incoherence with a wider body of scientific judgments. This view leads away from a naturalized philosophy of science back to its more classical epistemological conception
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/289527
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
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Progress and Rationality: Laudan's Attempt to Divorce a Happy Couple.Matthias Kaiser - 1991 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 34 (4):433-455.
Normative Naturalism and Epistemic Relativism.Karyn L. Freedman - 2006 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20 (3):309 – 322.
Naturalized Epistemology, or What the Strong Programme Can't Explain.Karyn L. Freedman - 2005 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 36 (1):135-148.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
From Methodology to Dialectics: A Post-Cartesian Approach to Scientific Rationality.Marcello Pera - 1986 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:359 - 374.
Methodology, Epistemology and Conventions: Popper's Bad Start.John Preston - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:314 - 322.
Methodologische Regeln Des Kritischen Rationalismus.Herbert Keuth - 1978 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 9 (2):236-255.
Progress and Rationality: Laudan's Attempt to Divorce a Happy Couple.Matthias Kaiser - 1991 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 34 (4):433-455.
The Empirical Character of Methodological Rules.Warren Schmaus - 1996 - Philosophy of Science 63 (3):106.
Normative Naturalism and the Role of Philosophy.Alexander Rosenberg - 1990 - Philosophy of Science 57 (1):34-43.
What's Really Wrong with Laudan's Normative Naturalism.Jonathan Knowles - 2002 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16 (2):171 – 186.
Are Methodological Rules Hypothetical Imperatives?David B. Resnik - 1992 - Philosophy of Science 59 (3):498-507.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

25 ( #202,968 of 2,169,100 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #186,455 of 2,169,100 )

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