Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T10:12:19.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Philosophy of Progress…

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Larry Laudan
Larry Laudan*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Philosophical dialogue is a curious activity. Arguments are expected to be rigorous, but no demand is made that there must be evidence for the premisses. Terminology is expected to be precise, but its appropriateness to the subject matter under discussion can be left unexplored. Officially, nothing is conceded; but, in fact, a great deal is taken for granted. Ad argumentum mingles indiscriminately with ad hominem; and, above all, the evidential warrant for one’s philosophical claims is, like the topics of sex and religion to the less enlightened, one of those delicate issues never to be discussed in mixed company.

Such conventions as these that are associated with contemporary philosophical exchange make it difficult to have a balanced discussion about Progress and Its Problems. That work is, in the first instance, a descriptive model of theory change in science. It purports to establish what sorts of factors have in fact influenced scientific decision-making.

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. 530 - 547
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.)

Footnotes

1

I am grateful to a variety of colleagues, including R. Burian and L. Krüger, for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this essay. I also want to acknowledge my gratitude to A. Grünbaum whose discussions on the issues treated here have been invaluable.

References

[1] Gutting, Gary. Review of [4]. Erkenntnis 15(1980): 91–104.Google Scholar
[2] Jardine, Nicholas. “Science as Problem-Solving.” Science 27 (1978): 415–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Laudan, Larry. “The Medium and its Message: A Study of some Philosophical Controversies About Ether.” In Conceptions of Ether. Studies in the History of Ether Theories 1740-1900. Edited by Cantor, G.N. and Hodge, M.J.S. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Pages 157–185.Google Scholar
[4] Laudan, Larry. Progress and Its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977.Google Scholar
[5] Laudan, Larry. “Sources of Modern Methodology.” In Historical and Philosophical Dimensions of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. (The University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science. Volume 12.) Edited by Butts, R.E. and Hintikka, J. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1977. Pages 3–19.Google Scholar
[6] Laudan, Larry. “Two Dogmas of Methodology.” Philosophy of Science 43(1976): 585–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Laudan, Rachel. “The Recent Revolution in Geology and Kuhn’s Theory of Scientific Change.” In PSA 1978, Volume 2. Edited by Asquith, P.D. and Hacking, I. East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association, 1981. Pages 227–239.Google Scholar
[8] Nagel, Ernest. Teleology Revisited. New York: Columbia University Press, 1979.Google Scholar