Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T20:32:51.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theory Choice and Resistance to Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Andrew Lugg
Andrew Lugg*
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The object of this paper is twofold: to show that resistance to scientific change on the part of scientists need signal neither irrationality nor the presence of extra-scientific influences; and to show how such resistance can be accommodated within a theory of rational choice. After considerations have been outlined suggesting that scientists cannot rationally resist new scientific theories unless theory choice is subjectivistic (section I), evidence is adduced favoring the contrary view (section II). In section III, a non-subjectivistic, non-relativistic conception of rational choice is proposed which recognizes the possibility of scientists' rationally resisting new scientific developments. Finally, in section IV, some minor misunderstandings concerning resistance are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , June 1980 , pp. 227 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1980

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.)

Footnotes

†

In writing this paper I have benefited from the comments of Warren Ingber, Adam Morton and the referees for this journal.

References

Agassiz, L. (1962), Essay on Classification. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Originally published in 1857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, B. (1961), “Resistance by Scientists to Scientific Discovery.” Science 134: 596–602; reprinted in B. Barber and W. Hirsch (eds.), The Sociology of Science (1962), New York: Free Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, S. B. (1972), “On the Reception of Scientific Beliefs.” In Sociology of Science. Edited by B, S. Barnes, Harmondsworth: Penguin: 269–291.Google Scholar
Buchdahl, G. (1970), “History of Science and Criteria of Choice.” Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 5: 204–245.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1969), “Ethnocentrism of Disciplines and the Fish-Scale Model of Omniscience.” In Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social Sciences. Edited by Sherif, M. and W, C. Sherif, Chicago: Aldine, 328–348.Google Scholar
Chorley, R. J., Dunn, A. J., and Beckinsale, R. P. (1964), The History of the Study of Landforms. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cole, J. R. and Cole, S. (1973), Social Stratification in Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Conant, J. B. (1957a), “The Overthrow of the Phlogiston Theory,” Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 65–115.Google Scholar
Conant, J. B. (1957b), “Pasteur's Study of Fermentation,” Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 437–485.Google Scholar
Crosland, M. (1971) (ed.) The Science of Matter. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Davies, G. L. (1969), The Earth in Decay. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fruton, J. S. (1972), Molecules of Life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gillispie, C. C. (1960), The Edge of Objectivity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Guerlac, H. (1975), Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier: Chemist and Revolutionary. New York: Scribners.Google Scholar
Hansen, B. (1970), “The Early History of the Glacial Theory in British Geology.” Journal of Glaciology 9: 135–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henle, M. (1973), “On Controversy and Its Resolution.” In Historical Conceptions of Psychology. Edited by Henle, M., Jaynes, J. and J, J. Sullivan, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. (1970), “Hermeticism and Historiography: An Apology for Internal History of Science.” Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 5: 134–160.Google Scholar
Holton, G. (1962), “Models for Understanding the Growth and Excellence of Scientific Research.” In Excellence and Leadershp in a Democracy. Edited by Graubard, S. R. and Holton, G. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Holton, G. (1978), “Themata in Scientific Thought,” The Scientific Imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1973) (ed.), Darwin and His Critics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Knight, D. (1967), Atoms and Elements. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1961), “The Function of Dogma in Scientific Research.” In Scientific Change. Edited by Crombie, A. C. London: Heinemann, 347–370.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Second Edition, 1970.)Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970a), “Postscript-1969,” The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Second Edition, 1970.)Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970b), “Reflections on My Critics.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 231–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1971), “Notes on Lakatos.” Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 8: 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1978), “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice,” The Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 320–339.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1977), Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lavoisier, A. (1776), “Mémoire sur l'Existence de l'Air dans l'Acide Nitreux.” In Oeuvres de Lavoisier, Volume II, Paris: Imprimerie Impériale (1862), 129–138.Google Scholar
Lavoisier, A. (1783), “Réflexions sur le Phlogistique.” In Oeuvres de Lavoisier, Volume II. Paris: Imprimerie Impériale (1862), 623–655.Google Scholar
Levi, I. (1969), “Induction and the Aims of Inquiry.” In Philosophy Science, and Method. Edited by Morgenbesser, S., Suppes, P. and White, M. New York: St. Martin's, 92–111.Google Scholar
Lindsay, J. (1970) (ed.), Autobiography of Joseph Priestley. Bath: Adams and Dart.Google Scholar
Lugg, A. (1978a), “Overdetermined Problems in Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 9: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lugg, A. (1978b), “Disagreement in Science.” Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 9: 176–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lurie, E. (1960), Louis Agassiz: A Life in Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lurie, E. (1962), Introduction to L. Agassiz, Essay on Classification. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lyell, C. (1830), Principles of Geology. Volume 1. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Lyell, C. (1833), Principles of Geology. Volume 3. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Lyell, C. (1840), “On the Geological Evidence of the Former Existence of Glaciers in Forfarshire.” Proceedings of the Geological Society 3: 337–345.Google Scholar
Lyell, C. (1841), Elements of Geology. Volume I. London: John Murray. (Second Edition.)Google Scholar
Lyell, C. (1863), The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man. London: J. Murray.Google Scholar
Lyell, C. (1881), Life, Letters, and Journals. Edited by Lyell, K. M., London: J. Murray.Google Scholar
Mayer, U. B. (1973), Continental Drift: The Evolution of a Concept. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
McEvoy, J. G. and McGuire, J. E. (1975), “God and Nature: Priestley's Way of Rational Dissent.” Historical Studies in the Physical Science 6: 325–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, B. (1973), The Justification of Religious Belief. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musgrave, A. (1974), “Logical Versus Historical Theories of Confirmation.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musgrave, A. (1976a), “Method or Madness.” In Essays in Memory of Irme Lakatos. Edited by Cohen, R. S., Feyeraberd, P. K. and Wartofsky, M. W. Dordrecht: Reidel, 457–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musgrave, A. (1976b), “Why did Oxygen Supplant Phlogiston? Research Programmes in the Chemical Revolution.” In Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences. Edited by Howson, C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 181–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partington, J. R. (1962), A History of Chemistry. Volume III. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partington, J. R. (1964), A History of Chemistry. Volume IV. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Price, D. de S. (1965), “Networks of Scientific Papers.” Science 149: 510–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schagrin, M. L. (1963), “Resistance to Ohm's Law.” American Journal of Physics 31: 536–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, I. (1967), Science and Subjectivity. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merill.Google Scholar
Schofield, R. (1967), “Joseph Priestley, Natural Philosopher.” Ambix 14: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vorzimmer, P. J. (1970), Charles Darwin: The Years of Controversy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar