Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-31T22:59:02.036Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Influence of Knowledge on the Description of Facts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Dudley Shapere
Dudley Shapere*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Every inquiry, or at least every inquiry that aims at knowledge, has a subject-matter - that which the inquiry is about, which is the object or set of objects studied. Let us, for the sake of brevity, and without further analysis for the present, call the set of things studied in an investigation the domain of the inquiry, and the particular things that make up the domain the items of the domain. (These “items” might, in particular inquiries, be spoken of as “objects,” “processes,” “behavior,” “facts,” or in still other ways; but such ways of speaking involve problems which, being irrelevant to present purposes, I wish to avoid by speaking more generally of “items.” Sometimes it is convenient to speak of classes of items as themselves items which are objects of investigation.)

Type
Part V. Growth of Scientific Knowledge — To What Extent Does Prior Knowledge Condition the Acquisition of New Knowledge?
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1976 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1976 , 1976 , pp. 281 - 298
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 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.)

References

[1] Crosland, M. Historical Studies in the Language of Chemistry. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
[2] Darden, L. and Maull, N. “Interfield Theories.” Philosophy of Science 44(1977): 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Fichman, M. “French Stahlism and Chemical Studies of Air.” Ambix 18 (1971): 94–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[4] Kapoor, S. “Berthollet, Proust, and Proportions.” Chymia 10 (1965): 53–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Multhauf, R. The Origins of Chemistry. New York: Franklin Watts, 1967.Google Scholar
[6] Shapere, D. “Scientific Theories and Their Domains.” In The Structure of Scientific Theories. Edited by Suppe, Frederick. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1974. Pages 518–565.Google Scholar
[7] Shapere, D. “The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
[8] Siegfried, R. and Dobbs, B. “Composition, A Neglected Aspect of the Chemical Revolution.” Annals of Science 24 (1968): 275–293.10.1080/00033796800200201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Smith, C. “Matter versus Materials: A Historical View.” Science 162 (1968): 637–644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed