Beschreibung
In this book I discuss the justification of scientific change and argue that it rests on different sorts of invariance. Against this background I con sider notions of observation, meaning, and regulative standards. My position is in opposition to some widely influential and current views. Revolutionary new ideas concerning the philosophy of science have recently been advanced by Feyerabend, Hanson, Kuhn, Toulmin, and others. There are differences among their views and each in some respect differs from the others. It is, however, not the differences, but rather the similarities that are of primary concern to me here. The claim that there are pervasive presuppositions fundamental to scientific in vestigations seems to be essential to the views of these men. Each would further hold that transitions from one scientific tradition to another force radical changes in what is observed, in the meanings of the terms employed, and in the metastandards involved. They would claim that total replace ment, not reduction, is what does, and should, occur during scientific revolutions. I argue that the proposed arguments for radical observational variance, for radical meaning variance, and for radical variance of regulative standards with respect to scientific transitions all fail. I further argue that these positions are in themselves implausible and methodologically undesirable. I sketch an account of the rationale of scientific change which preserves the merits and avoids the shortcomings of the approach of radical meaning variance theorists.
Autorenporträt
InhaltsangabeAnalytical Table of Contents.- 1: The Theory-ladenness of Observation.- I. Summary of the general view held by Professors Feyerabend, Hanson, Kuhn, and Toulmin: scientists who accept different theories cannot see the same things.- II. I consider Hanson's position in detail. For Hanson scientists in different traditions see different things in the sense of 'see' relevant to science. I reconstruct and evaluate his argument.- A. I summarize his position and reconstruct his argument. Two cases: 'sees that' means 'knows that' or 'believes that'.- B. Evaluation of the first case: 'sees that' means 'knows that'. The argument is valid, but leads to absurd consequences; the premises are false. I compare the Hansonian program with the sense-data program. Other reasons suggesting the falsity of the premises: 'sees that' and 'knows that' are usually intensional; 'sees' is usually not.- C. Evaluation of the second case: 'sees that' means 'believes that'. This argument is invalid. Its conclusion leads to absurd consequences: There would be a problem with rational revisions of essential beliefs. Tycho's and Kepler's beliefs would not be rival. The premises are false. Another reason suggesting their falsity: 'believes that' is intensional; 'sees' is not.- D. Hanson's view of observation is incompatible with his view of retroductive inference.- III I consider Feyerabend's position in detail. Scheffler's and Quine's views each illuminate the issues. One could maintain both that observational results are theory-neutral and that there are no data without concepts.- IV. I consider Kuhn's position in detail.- A. I critically examine some of Kuhn's examples and his evidence for Gestalt shifts. 'Seeing' versus 'believing that': I sketch an alternative approach.- B. An analysis of one of Kuhn's examples suggests that for Kuhn different traditions could not be rival. Source of difficulty: false or "systematically misleading" claims. I sketch an alternative approach similar to IVA.- V. I carry out a general methodological reductio ad absurdum of the position held by Feyerabend, Hanson, Kuhn, and Toulmin.- A. Revision of beliefs as to the essential properties of experience would be precluded. Progress would thus, in this sense, be precluded.- B. Different traditions could not be rivals or alternatives.- C. Kuhn, for example, seems to presuppose fixed data, namely, an environment. There is an interaction problem between theory, and environment or fact.- D. Observations presuppose, and are laden with, the particular theory of the time. Therefore, no theory could be tested or falsified.- 1. Observations and observation reports could not lead to the rational rejection of a scientific theory.- 2. Nor could they lead to the rational acceptance of a new theory which is inconsistent with the old.- VI. There is positive justification for assuming that experience is neutral with respect to alternative scientific theories. V provided us with methodological justification. The historical examples (esp. in IV) provided us with empirical support. There are two bits of further empirical evidence: (a) the existence of surprise and unsettlement; (b) scientists in different traditions sometimes use the same sorts of sentences to describe what they have observed. I examine an illegitimate use of (b) by Feyerabend to suggest the opposite of my view.- VII. I discuss the merits of their view and present a viable sense for 'the theory-ladenness of observation'. The confirmation and test potential of observations may change with change in theory; scientists in different traditions may therefore sometimes look for new things and sometimes in fact see new things if they find what they are looking for.- Conclusion: The arguments for the radical non-neutrality of observations have failed. There are, however, some merits in this view. I suggest that observation in fact is neutral. This is methodologically desirable. Science is a cumulative and expanding enterprise.
Herstellerkennzeichnung:
Springer Verlag GmbH
Tiergartenstr. 17
69121 Heidelberg
DE
E-Mail: juergen.hartmann@springer.com
