Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T04:16:24.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Procedural Representation in Michael Faraday's Scientific Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Ryan D. Tweney
Ryan D. Tweney*
Affiliation:
Bowling Green State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Michael Faraday (1791-1867) was a productive, historically significant, figure who has served as the subject of several recent attempts to construct a cognitive model of the nature of scientific thinking (Gooding, 1985; Nersessian, 1984; Tweney, 1985a; in press). Of particular interest in the present context is the relation of such an analysis to the broader issue of the role of cognitive accounts in the philosophy of science. In accord with Giere's call for a ‘cognitive realism,’ I believe there are substantial philosophical implications that stem from one overriding characteristic of Faraday's work, namely his reliance on procedural ways of thinking. By procedural, I mean thinking which is rooted in specific activities whether concrete or abstract. As will become clear, my use of this term places me at odds with those psychologists, like Piaget, who regard concrete thought as different in kind and less powerful than formal thought. While it is indeed different in kind, it is not less powerful.

Type
Part IX. Epistemology
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1986 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1986 , 1986 , pp. 336 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 by the 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

Grateful acknowledgement is made to the archival staffs of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, England, and to the Royal Institution of Great Britain, London, England, for access to unpublished materials. The research described was supported in part by grants from the Faculty Research Committee, Bowling Green State University.

References

Cantor, G.N. (1985) “Reading the Book of Nature: The Relation Between Faraday's Religion and His Science.” In Faraday Rediscovered. Edited by Gooding, D. and James, F.A.J.L.. New York: Stockton Press, pp. 69-82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K.A. & Simon, H.A. (1984) Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Faraday, M. (1809-1810). A Philosophical Miscellany…. Unpublished Manuscript. In the collection of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, London, England.Google Scholar
Faraday, M. (1816) Common-Place Book…. Unpublished Manuscript. In the collection of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, England.Google Scholar
Faraday, M. (1818) “Observations on the Inertia of the Mind.” In Faraday, Common-Place Book …Unpublished Manuscript. In the collection of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, England.Google Scholar
Faraday, M. (1827) Chemical Manipulation: Being Instructions to Students in Chemistry. London: Murray.Google Scholar
Faraday, M. (1832a) “On the induction of electric currents….” Philosophical Transactions 122: pp. 125-162 (Based on a paper delivered to the Royal Society, November 24,1831).Google Scholar
Faraday, M. (1832b) “Terrestrial magneto-electric induction….” Philosophical Transactions 122: pp. 163-194.Google Scholar
Faraday, M. (1932-1936). Faraday's Diary…. 7 volumes. Edited by Martin, T.. London: Bell.Google Scholar
Gooding, D. (1985) “'In Nature's School: Faraday as an Experimentalist.” In Faraday Rediscovered. Edited by Gooding, D. & James, F.A.J.L.. New York: Stockton Press, pp. 105-136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klahr, D., Langley, P. and Neches, R. (eds.). (1987) Production System Models of Learning and Development. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcet, J. (1809) Conversations on Chemistry. Third Edition. London.Google Scholar
Maxwell, J.C. (1855) “On Faraday's Lines of Force.” Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 10:27-83.Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. (1984) Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientific Theories. Dordrecht: M. Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faraday, M. (1985) “Faraday's Field Concept.” In Faraday Rediscovered. Edited by Gooding, D. & James, F.A.J.L.. New York: Stockton Press, pp. 175-188.Google Scholar
Newell, A. and Simon, H.A. (1972) Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Tweney, R.D. (1985a) “Faraday's Discovery of Induction: A Cognitive Approach.” In Faraday Rediscovered. Edited by Gooding, D. & James, F.A.J.L.. New York: Stockton Press, pp. 189-210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tweney, R.D. (1985b) “Imagery and Memory in Michael Faraday's Scientific Thought.” Paper presented at the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science, Boston, MA, December 3,1985.Google Scholar
Tweney, R.D. (In press). “Fields of Enterprise: On Michael Faraday's Thought.” In Creative People at Work. Edited by Wallace, D.B. & Gruber, H.E..Google Scholar
Tweney, R.D. & Hoffner, C. (1987) “Protocol Analysis of a Scientific Diary.” Unpublished Manuscript. Bowling Green, Ohio.Google Scholar
Williams, L.P. (1965) Michael Faraday: A Biography. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Williams, L.P. (1971) The Selected Correspondence of Michael Faraday. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar