Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-l82ql Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T10:24:22.138Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a Richer Model of Man: A Critique of Laudan’s Progress and Its Problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Robert S. Westman
Robert S. Westman*
Affiliation:
University of California at Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In setting forth a new theory of the growth of scientific knowledge, Larry Laudan shows that any account of scientific change has consequences for the relationship between the history, philosophy and sociology of science. It is a laudable feature of his work that he does not treat any of these disciplines as undifferentiated monoliths. In fact, one of his main goals is to show that his account of progress requires specific ways of doing and relating these three disciplines. As an historian invited to speak at the Philosophy of Science Association, it seemed appropriate for me to appraise the function of history of science in Laudan’s program. Without going into unnecessary detail, let me begin by examining some of his main claims.

The focus of Laudan’s argument is on science construed as a form of problem-solving activity and on progress and rationality as appraisals of problem-solving capabilities.

Type
Part XII. Laudan’s Progress and Its Problems
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1978 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1978 , 1978 , pp. 492 - 504
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 Philosophy of Science Association

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] Copernicus, Nicholas. De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium. Amstelradami: W. Iansonius, 1617. (As reprinted as On the Revolutions. ( trans. ) Edward Rosen. Warsaw-Cracow: Polish Scientific Publishers, 1978.)Google Scholar
[2] Feyerabend, Paul. Against Method. London: New Left Books, 1975.Google Scholar
[3] Joravsky, David. The Lysenko Affair. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
[4] Kuhn, Thomas S. The Copernican Revolution. New York: Vintage Books, 1959.Google Scholar
[5] Lakatos, Imre and Zahar, Elie. “Why did Copernicus’ Research Program Supersede Ptolemy’s?” In The Copernican Achievement. Edited by Westman, Robert S. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1975. Pages 354–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Laudan, Larry. Progress and Its Problems. Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1977.Google Scholar
[7] Laudan, Larry. “The Philosophy of Progress … .” In PSA 1978. Volume 2. Edited by Asquith, P.D. and Hacking, I. East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association, 1981. Pages, 530–547.Google Scholar
[8] Machamer, Peter K. “Feyerabend and Galileo: The Interaction of Theories, and the Reinterpretation of Experience.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 4(1973): 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Rosen, Edward. Three Copernican Treatises. 3rd edition. New York: Dover, 1971.Google Scholar
[10] Swerdlow, Noel. “The Derivation and First Draft of Copernicus’ Planetary Theory: A Translation of the Commentariolus with Commentary.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 117(1973): 423–512.Google Scholar
[11] Westman, Robert S. “The Melanchthon Circle, Rheticus and the Wittenberg Interpretation of the Copernican Theory.” Isis 66 (1975): 165–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] Westman, Robert S. “Magical Reform and Astronomical Reform: The Yates Thesis Reconsidered.” In Hermeticism and the Scientific Revolution. Edited by Westman, R.S. and McGuire, J.E. Los Angeles: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, 1977. Pages 5–91.Google Scholar
[13] Westman, Robert S. “The Astronomer’s Role in the Sixteenth Century: A Preliminary Study.” History of Science 18(1980): 105–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar