Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T02:25:49.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining the Success of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Rose-Mary Sargent
Rose-Mary Sargent*
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ever since Hilary Putnam claimed that a realist philosophy is “the only philosophy that doesn’t make the success of science a miracle,” explanations for the success of science have proliferated in the philosophical literature (Putnam 1975, p. 73). Realists argue that the success of science, as exhibited by our ability to accurately predict and explain a wide range of phenomena, indicates that our theories have identified some of the underlying causal structures of the world (e.g., Boyd 1985, Ellis 1985, McMullin 1984, Salmon 1984). Nonrealists counter that success cannot provide a warrant for belief in the truth of scientific theories because there have been successful theories in the past that are now believed to be false (Laudan 1981b). Instead, they offer a naturalized account whereby our theories are designed to be successful predictors and only those which fulfill this goal survive (Laudan 1987, van Fraassen, 1980).

Type
Part II. Epistemology and the Dynamics of Science
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1988 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1988 , 1988 , pp. 55 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1988

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

Achinstein, P. (1983). The Nature of Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, P. (1985). Ideas, Qualities and Corpuscles: Locke and Boyle on the External World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, B. (1974). Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bloor, D. (1983). Wittgenstein: A Social Theory of Knowledge. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloor, D. (1984). “The Sociology of Reasons: Or Why ‘Epistemic Factors’ are Really ‘Social Factors’.” In Brown 1984, pp. 295-324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R.N. (1985). “Lex Orandi est Lex Credendi.” In Churchland and Hooker 1985, pp. 3-34.Google Scholar
Boyle, R. (1772). The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle. Edited by Birch, T., 6 Vols. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1965 facs. edn.Google Scholar
Brown, J.R. (ed.) (1984). Scientific Rationality: The Sociological Turn. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchland, P.M. and Hooker, C. A. (eds.) (1985). Images of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, I.B. (1987). Review of Shapin and Schaffer, (1985). The American Historical Review 92: 658-59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H.M. (1975). “The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of Phenomenon, or the Replication of Experiments in Physics,” Sociology 9: 204–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H.M. (1982). “Knowledge, Norms and Rules in the Sociology of Science”, Social Studies of Science 12: 299–309.10.1177/030631282012002005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duhem, P. (1982). The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Wiener, P.P., transl. of 1914 edn. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
Ellis, B. (1984). “What Science Aims to Do.” In Churchland and Hooker 1984, pp. 48-74.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (1984). “And Not Anti-Realism Either.” Nous 18: 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, A. (1984). “The Epistemology of Experiment.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35: 381–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, A. (1986). The Neglect of Experiment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galison, P. (1987). How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. (1980). Theory and Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. (1984). “Explanation and Realism.” In Leplin 1984, pp. 173-92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. (1985). “Do We See through a Microscope?” Churchland and Hooker (1985), pp. 132-52.Google Scholar
Hall, M.B. (1965). Robert Boyle on Natural Philosophy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Kockelmans, J.J. (1987). “On the Problem of Truth in the Sciences.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 61: 5–26.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1981a). “The Clock Metaphor and Hypotheses.” In Science and Hypothesis. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1981b). “A Confutation of Convergent Realism.” Philosophy of Science 48: 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1984). “The Pseudo-Science of Science.” In Brown 1984, pp. 41-73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1987). “Progress or Rationality? The Prospects for Normative Naturalism.” American Philosophical Quarterly 24: 19–31.Google Scholar
Leplin, J. (ed.) (1984). Scientific Realism. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leplin, J. (1984). “Truth and Scientific Progress.” In Leplin 1984, pp. 193-217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leplin, J. (1986). “Methodological Realism and Scientific Rationality.” Philosophy of Science 53: 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lugg, A. (1984). “Two Historiographical Strategies: Ideas and Social Conditions in the History of Science.” In Brown 1984, pp. 182-208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, E. (1984). “Two Ideals of Explanation in Natural Science.” In Causation and Causal Theories. Edited by French, P.A., et al. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 205-20.Google Scholar
Pickering, A. (1984). “Against Putting the Phenomena First: The Discovery of the Weak Neural Current.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 15: 85–117.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). Mathematics, Matter and Method, vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, G.A.J. (1972). “Descartes and the Method of English Science.” Annals of Science 29: 237–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rousseau, G.S. and Porter, R. (eds.) (1980). The Ferment of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. (1984). Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sargent, R. (1986). “Robert Boyle’s Baconian Inheritance.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 17: 469–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapere, D. (1982). “The Conception of Observation in Science and Philosophy.” Philosophy of Science 49. 485–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, S. (1980). “Social Uses of Science.” In Rousseau and Porter 1980, pp. 93-139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, S. (1982). “History of Science and Its Sociological Reconstructions.” History of Science 20: 157–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B.C. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B.C. (1985). “Empiricism in the Philosophy of Science.” In Churchland and Hooker 1985, pp. 245-308.Google Scholar
Westfall, R.S. (1956). “Unpublished Boyle Papers Relating to Scientific Method.” Annals of Science 12: 63–73; 103-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westfall, R.S. (1986). Review of Shapin and Schaffer (1985), Philosophy of Science 52: 128-30.Google Scholar
Woolhouse, R. S. (1971). Locke’s Philosophy of Science and Knowledge. New York: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar