Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g7rbq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T01:58:36.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Theories of the Development of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

A. Cornelius Benjamin
A. Cornelius Benjamin*
Affiliation:
University of Missouri
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Some recent and historical writers in the philosophy of science have concerned themselves with a certain problem which seems to occupy, at least in the minds of those who have written about it, a position of peculiar importance. Whether the problem is really as significant as its authors maintain need not be decided here; certainly many writers in this area have either neglected it or made only vague allusions to it. It can best be described as the problem of the development of science, and it is usually solved in terms of a certain theory that science passes in its growth, either naturally or under the control of conscious logical techniques, through various “stages” or “phases.” For some strange reason these levels are usually exactly three in number. One would like to believe that this number is not a magic one, but empirically demanded by the actual way in which the sciences develop. But the fact that the descriptions of these stages in the writings of the various authors appear to agree only in their triplicity, and not in content, would incline one to believe otherwise. There is, in fact, the slight suspicion that the number three has been preferred to the number two simply because a triad may be ordered in a way in which a couple may not, and to the number four or any larger number merely because of the preference for simplicity over complexity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , July 1953 , pp. 167 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © 1953, The Williams & Wilkins Company

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

(1) Bavink, Bernhard, The Natural Sciences. New York: Century, 1932.Google Scholar
(2) Carnap, R., Philosophy and Logical Syntax. London: Kegan Paul, 1935.Google Scholar
(3) Carnap, R., The Unity of Science. London: Kegan Paul, 1934.Google Scholar
(4) Carnap, R., “Testability and Meaning,” Philosophy of Science, III, pp. 420–471; IV, pp. 2–40.Google Scholar
(5) Cassirer, Ernst, Substance and Function. Chicago: Open Court, 1923.Google Scholar
(6) Comte, A., Positive Philosophy, tr. by H. Martineau. New York, 1858, Chap. I.Google Scholar
(7) Dingle, Herbert, Science and Human Experience. London: Williams, Norgate, 1931.Google Scholar
(8) Einstein, A., Sidelights on Relativeity. London: Methuen, 1922.Google Scholar
(9) Feigl, Herbert, “The Logical Character of the Principle of Induction,” Readings in Philosophical Analysis by Feigl, Herbert and Sellars, Wilfred. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1949.Google Scholar
(10) Hilbert, D., and Bernays, P., Grundlagen der Mathematik, Vol. I. Berlin: Springer, 1934.Google Scholar
(11) Hobson, E. W., Domain of Natural Science. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1923.Google Scholar
(12) Keyser, C. J., Thinking about Thinking. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1926.Google Scholar
(13) Lewin, Kurt, Principles of Topological Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Chap. II.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(14) Lewin, Kurt, “The Conflict between Aristotelian and Galilean Modes of Thought in Contemporary Psychology,” Journal of General Psychology, V, 1931.Google Scholar
(15) Mill, J. S., System of Logic. London: Longmans, Green, 1868.Google Scholar
(16) Northrop, F. S. C., The Logic of the Science and the Humanities. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1947. Chs. II, III, IV.Google Scholar
(17) Pearson, Karl, Grammar of Science. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1911.Google Scholar
(18) Poincaré, Henri, Science and Hypothesis. New York: Charles Schribner's Sons, 1907.Google Scholar
(19) Quine, W. V., “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” Philosophical Review, LX, 1951.Google Scholar
(20) Reichenbach, Hans, “The Verfiability Theory of Meaning,” Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, XXC, 1, 1951.Google Scholar
(21) Reichenbach, Hans, Experience and Prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1938, Chap. V.Google Scholar
(22) Russell, Bertrand, Mysticism and Logic. New York: Longmans, Green, 1921.Google Scholar
(23) Vaihinger, Hans, The Philosophy of ‘Af If.’ New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1925.Google Scholar
(24) Weber, Max, On the Methodology of the Social Sciences. Glencoe: The Free Press. 1949.Google Scholar
(25) White, M. G., “The Analytic and the Synthetic: An Untenable Dualism,” in John Dewey: Philosopher of Science and Freedom, ed. by S. Hook. New York: The Dial Press, 1950.Google Scholar