In defense of the Quine-Duhem thesis: A reply to Greenwood

Philosophy of Science 59 (3):487-491 (1992)
Abstract
While discussing the work of Kuhn and Hanson, John Greenwood (1990) misidentifies the nature of the relationship between the incommensurability of theories and the theory-ladenness of observation. After pointing out this error, I move on to consider Greenwood's main argument that the Quine-Duhem thesis suffers from a form of epistemological self-defeat if it is interpreted to mean that any recalcitrant observation can always be accommodated to any theory. Greenwood finds this interpretation implausible because some adjustments to auxiliary hypotheses undermine too much of the prior observational evidence for the test theory. I argue that Greenwood mistakes the logico-metaphysical Quine-Duhem thesis for an epistemological one. All the argument he takes to undercut it actually illustrates how well the thesis works on a practical level. This is illustrated with an example from contemporary immunology
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/289686
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,694
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Real World Epistemic Under-Determination.Martin Bunzl - 2003 - Philosophia 31 (1-2):139-147.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
175 ( #27,187 of 2,197,228 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #298,376 of 2,197,228 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature