The best explanation of a scientific paper

Philosophy of Science 65 (3):406-410 (1998)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Frederick Suppe would have us reject hypothetico-deductivism, Bayesianism, and Inference to the Best Explanation, on the grounds that none of these philosophical models can account for the argumentative structure that virtually all data-based papers in science share, a structure exemplified by W. Jason Morgan's landmark paper in plate tectonics. At the core of that putative universal structure is a strategy whereby recalcitrant data are given interpretations designed to show that the theory or scientific model being advanced need not take them into account. Pity Karl Popper: immunizing stratagems are the soul of scientific argument.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,127

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
20 (#793,209)

6 months
93 (#55,573)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Doing science, writing science.Jutta Schickore - 2008 - Philosophy of Science 75 (3):323-343.
Reply to commentators.Frederick Suppe - 1998 - Philosophy of Science 65 (3):417-424.
Constructing a scientific paper: Howell's prothrombin laboratory notebook and paper.James A. Marcum - 2001 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 15 (3):293 – 310.

Add more citations

References found in this work

VI*—Is the Best Good Enough?Peter Lipton - 1993 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 93 (1):89-104.

Add more references