Table Of ContentTHE PROCESS OF SCIENCE
SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY
This series has been established as a forum for contemporary anal
ysis of philosophical problems which arise in connection with the
construction of theories in the physical and the biological sciences.
Contributions will not place particular emphasis on anyone school
of philosophical thought. However, they will reflect the belief that
the philosophy of science must be firmly rooted in an examination
of actual scientific practice. Thus, the volumes in this series will
include or depend significantly upon an analysis of the history of
science, recent or past. The Editors welcome contributions from
scientists as well as from philosophers and historians of science.
Series Editor
Nancy J. Nersessian, Department of Philosophy, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, U.S.A.
Editorial Advisory Board
Joseph Agassi, Department of Philosophy, York University,
Toronto, Canada, and Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Max Dresden, Director, Institute for Theoretical Physics, State
University of New York, Stony Brook, L.I., New York, U.S.A.
Marjorie Grene, Department of Philosophy, University of Califor
nia, Davis, California, U.S.A.
Dudley Shapere, Department of Philosophy, Wake Forest Univer
sity, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, U.S.A.
NANCY J. NERSESSIAN
Editor
The Process of Science
Contemporary Philosophical Approaches to
Understanding Scientific Practice
1987 MARTINUS NIJHOFF PUBLISHERS
a member of the KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS GROUP
DORDRECHT / BOSTON / LANCASTER
Distributors
for the United States and Canada: Kluwer Academic Publishers, P.O. Box 358,
Accord Station, Hingham, MA 02018-0358, USA
for the UK and Ireland: Kluwer Academic Publishers, MTP Press Limited,
Falcon House, Queen Square, Lancaster LA1 IRN, UK
for all other countries: Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Distribution Center,
P.O. Box 322, 3300 AH Dordrecht, The Netherlands
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
The Process of science.
(Science and philosophy)
Includes index.
1. Science--Philosophy. 2. Science--Methodology.
I. Nersessian, Nancy J. II. Series.
Q175.3.P785 lY87 501 8b-L3666
ISBN-13: 978-94-010-8072-9 e-ISBN-13: 978-94-009-3519-8
001: 10.1007/978-94-009-3519-8
Copyright
© 1987 by Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht.
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1s t edition 1987
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of
the publishers,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, P.O. Box 163, 3300 AD Dordrecht,
The Netherlands.
Table of contents
Preface VII
List of contributors IX
Notes on contributors XI
Method in the philosophy of science and epistemology: How to inquire about
inquiry and knowledge 1
Dudley Shapere
'Twixt method and madness 41
Thomas Nickles
Historical realism and contextual objectivity: A developing perspective in the
philosophy of science 69
Marjorie Grene
Research problems and the understanding of science 83
William Berkson
Twenty years after 95
Joseph Agassi
The semantic approach to scientific theories 105
Bas C. van Fraassen
The garden in the machine: Gender relations, the processes of science, and
feminist epistemological strategies 125
Sandra Harding
The cognitive study of science 139
Ronald N. Giere
VI
A cognitive - historical approach to meaning in scientific theories 161
Nancy J. Nersessian
Naturalizing observation 179
Harold 1. Brown
Realist methodology in genetics 195
Richard M. Burian
Parsimony and the units of selection 211
Elliott Sober
Preface
For some time now the philosophy of science has been undergoing a major transfor
mation. It began when the 'received view' of scientific knowledge - that developed
by logical positivists and their intellectual descendants - was challenged as bearing
little resemblance to and having little relevance for the understanding of real science.
Subsequently, an overwhelming amount of criticism has been added. One would be
hard-pressed to find anyone who would support the 'received view' today. Yet, in
the search for a new analysis of scientific knowledge, this view continues to exert
influence over the tenor of much of present-day philosophy of science; in particular,
over its problems and its methods of analysis.
There has, however, emerged an area within the discipline - called by some the
'new philosophy of science' - that has been engaged in transforming the problems
and methods of philosophy of science. While there is far from a consensus of beliefs
in this area, most of the following contentions would be affirmed by those working in
it:
- that science is an open-ended, on-going activity, whose character has changed
significantly during its history
- that science is not a monolithic enterprise
- that good science can lead to false theories
- that science has its roots in everyday circumstances, needs, methods, concepts,
etc. of human beings
- that through examination of science we will learn how to understand such notions
as 'observation', 'theory', 'meaning', 'reference', 'explanation', 'progress' and
'rationality'
- that the boundary between a 'scientific' question and a 'philosophical' question,
especially as regards foundational problems, is often blurry
- that the function of the philosophy of science is descriptive, critical, and norma
tive
- that the philosophy of science is not self-sufficient, insofar as the methods of
philosophy need to be supplemented by concepts, principles, theories, etc.,
drawn from other disciplines; though it remains to be determined just what can be
used and how.
VITI
These beliefs have as support extensive analyses of 'case studies' of past and present
scientific practices. Such examinations have shown the importance of 'case study'
analysis to go far beyond that of simply providing a means of critiquing philosophical
views. That is, study of the processes by which theories and concepts are formulated
and accepted or rejected is prerequisite to philosophical understanding. Rather than
creating sweeping theories, the 'new philosophy of science' is attempting to deal with
the existing complexities of actual scientific practices. But how are philosophers to
do this? By what methods can philosophers legitimately inquire about the processes
of scientific inquiry and its products? Resolving this question is of fundamental
importance to the future of philosophy of science.
When the Science and Philosophy series was established, it was decided that one
of the early volumes should contain a collection of essays in which philosophers were
offered an opportunity to reflect upon the methods that they are using and believe
should be used to gain the fullest and most accurate understanding of the nature of
scientific knowledge and inquiry. Although questions of method in the philosophy of
science form the common thread running through these essays, the views expressed
and the topics discussed are quite varied. The result is a collection which, while not
exhaustive of contemporary views in the area, gives witness to both the diversity of
viewpoint and the commonality of concerns of the 'new philosophy of science'. As
such it provides a valuable sourcebook of contemporary methodological practices.
I thank the contributors for undertaking a difficult task and for producing a
stimulating and provocative volume.
I would like, also, to take this opportunity to thank Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
and, in particular, Alexander Schimmelpenninck, for enabling me to establish this
series.
Finally, I appreciate the hospitality of the Center for the Philosophy of Science,
University of Pittsburgh, during the final stages of the preparation of this volume.
Pittsburgh, May, 1986 Nancy J. Nersessian
List of contributors
Joseph Agassi, Tel Aviv University & York University; Address York University:
Dept. of Philosophy, 4700 Keele Street, Downsview, Ontario, M3J IP3,
Canada
William K. Berkson, 1618 Waters Edge Lane, Reston , VA 22090, U. S. A.
Harold I. Brown, Northern Illinois University, Dept. of Philosophy, De Kalb,
IL60115, U.S.A.
Richard M. Burian, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Dept. of
Philosophy, Blacksburg, VA 24061, U.S.A.
Bas C. van Fraassen, Princeton University, Dept. of Philosophy, Princeton,
NJ 08540, U.S.A.
Ronald N. Giere, Indiana University, History & Philosophy of Science, 130
Goodbody Hall, Bloomington, IN 47405, U.S.A.
Marjorie Grene, 206 Ridgedale Road, Ithaca, NY 14850, U.S.A.
Sandra Harding, University of Delaware, Dept. of Philosophy, Newark,
DE 19716, U.S.A.
Nancy Nersessian, University of Pittsburgh, Dept. of Philosophy, 817 Cathedral
of Learning, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, U.S.A.
Thomas Nickles, University of Nevada-Reno, Dept. of Philosophy, Reno,
NV89557, U.S.A.
Dudley Shapere, Wake Forest University, Dept. of Philosophy and History of
Science, Drawer 7229 - Reynolda Station, Winston-Salem, NC27109, U.S.A.
x
Elliott Sober, University of Wisconsin, Dept. of Philosophy, 5185 White Hall,
Madison, WI 53706, U.S.A.
