Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-dwch4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-19T07:33:09.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

More than a Marriage of Convenience: On the Inextricability of History and Philosophy of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Richard M. Burian
Richard M. Burian*
Affiliation:
Brandeis University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

History of science, it has been argued, has benefited philosophers of science primarily by forcing them into greater contact with “real science.” In this paper I argue that additional major benefits arise from the importance of specifically historical considerations within philosophy of science. Loci for specifically historical investigations include: (1) making and evaluating rational reconstructions of particular theories and explanations, (2) estimating the degree of support earned by particular theories and theoretical claims, and (3) evaluating proposed philosophical norms for the evaluation of the degree of support for theories and the worth of explanations. More generally, I argue that theories develop and change structure with time, that (like biological species) they are historical entities. Accordingly, both the identification and the evaluation of theories are essentially historical in character.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , March 1977 , pp. 1 - 42
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

I am grateful to Jon Adler, Gladys Else, Paul Feyerabend, Ron Giere, Phil Quinn, Caroline Whitbeck, my students in Philosophy 140b, and especially Catherine Elgin for constructive criticism of an earlier draft. A subvention from Brandeis University faculty research funds, administered by Jack S. Goldstein, is gratefully acknowledged.

References

REFERENCES

Agassi, J. Towards an Historiography of Science. 's-Gravenhage: Mouton & Co., 1963.Google Scholar
Brush, S. “Should the History of Science be Rated X?” Science 183 (1974): 1164–1172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buck, R. C. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.). PSA-1970: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. VIII. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burian, R. “Conceptual Change, Cross-Theoretical Explanation, and the Unity of Science.” Synthese 32 (1975): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burian, R. and Elgin, C. Z. “Incommensurability Dissolved: Against the Claim that each Theory has a Private Language.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Cohen, I. B. “History and the Philosopher of Science.” (With a “Reply to Cohen.” by P. Achinstein and “Discussion.”) In [61], pp. 308–373.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. J. The Implications of Induction. London: Methuen & Co., 1970.Google Scholar
Cohen, R. S. and Wartofsky, M. W. (eds.). Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. II. New York: Humanities Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Colodny, R. G. (ed.). Beyond the Edge of Certainty: Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. II. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965.Google Scholar
Colodny, R. G. (ed.). The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories: Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. IV. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Dorling, J. “The Structure of Scientific Inference (Review of M. B. Hesse: The Structure of Scientific Inference).” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 26 (1975): 61–71.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. “Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge.” In [46], pp. 17–130.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. “Problems of Empiricism.” In [9], pp. 145–260.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. “Problems of Empiricism, Part II.” In [10], pp. 275–353.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. “Reply to Criticism: Comments on Smart, Sellars, and Putnam.” In [8], pp. 223–261.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. “Zahar on Einstein.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 25 (1974): 25–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. “History and Philosophy of Science: Intimate Relationship or Marriage of Convenience?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 24 (1973): 282–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. “The Bearing of Philosophy on the History of the Theory of Relativity.” In [20], pp. 709–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. “Can a Theory Answer more Questions than one of its Rivals?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 27 (1976): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. Philosophical Problems of Space and Time. (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harré, R. (ed.). Problems of Scientific Revolution: Progress and Obstacles to Progress in the Sciences. London: Oxford University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. The Structure of Scientific Inference. London: Macmillan, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koertge, N. “Theory Change in Science.” In [43], pp. 167–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?” In [32], pp. 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. “Postscript—1969.” In [28], pp. 174–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. “Reflections on my Critics.” In [32], pp. 231–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. “Second Thoughts on Paradigms.” In [61], pp. 459–482.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. “Falsification and the Methodology of Research Programmes.” In [32], pp. 91–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. “History of Science and its Rational Reconstructions.” In [3], pp. 91–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. “Popper on Demarcation and Induction.” In [54], pp. 241–273.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, I. Gambling with Truth. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967.Google Scholar
Maull, N. “Using Science.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. “The Fertility of Theory and the Unit for Appraisal in Science.” In Cohen, R. S., Feyerabend, P. K., and Wartofsky, M. W., (eds.) Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 39. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1976, pp. 395–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, E. “History and Philosophy of Science: A Marriage of Convenience?” (Forthcoming in the Proceedings of the 1974 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, E. “The History and Philosophy of Science: A Taxonomy.” In [60], pp. 12–67.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. “Logicality and Rationality: A Comment on Toulmin's Theory of Science.” In [55], pp. 415–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monod, J. “On the Molecular Theory of Evolution.” In [21], pp. 11–24.Google Scholar
Musgrave, A. “Logical Versus Historical Theories of Confirmation.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 25 (1974): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naess, A. The Pluralist and Possibilist Aspect of the Scientific Enterprise. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1972.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. “Heuristics and Justification in Scientific Research: Comments on Shapere.” In [61], pp. 571–589.Google Scholar
Pearce, G. and Maynard, P. (eds.). Conceptual Change. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. “The Aim of Science.” Revised version in [45], pp. 24–35.Google Scholar
Popper, K. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Oxford University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Radner, M. and Winokur, S. (eds.). Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. IV: Analyses of Theories and Methods of Physics and Psychology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Ravetz, J. Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems. London: Oxford University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. “Bayes's Theorem and the History of Science.” In [60], pp. 68–86.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. The Foundations of Scientific Inference. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, K. “Einstein versus Lorentz: Research Programmes and the Logic of Theory Evaluation.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 25 (1974): 45–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, K. “Outlines of a Logic of Comparative Theory Evaluation with Special Attention to Pre- and Post-Relativistic Electrodynamics.” In [60], pp. 311–354. “Comments” by H. Stein, A. Koslow, P. Bowman, and a “Reply” by Schaffner in [60], pp. 354–373.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. “The Unity of Science and Theory Construction in Molecular Biology.” In [55], pp. 497–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, K. and Cohen, R., eds. PSA-1972: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. XX. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schilpp, P. (ed.). The Philosophy of Karl Popper. LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1974.Google Scholar
Seeger, R. and Cohen, R. (eds.). Philosophical Foundations of Science: Proceedings of Section L, 1969, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. XI. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapere, D. “Scientific Theories and Their Domains.” In [61], pp. 518–565.Google Scholar
Shimony, A. “Scientific Inference.” In [10], pp. 79–172.Google Scholar
Smart, J. “Science, History and Methodology (Review of I. Lakatos and A. E. Musgrave (eds.): Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge and R. C. Buck and R. S. Cohen (eds.) PSA-1970.)” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 266–274.Google Scholar
Sneed, J. The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuewer, R. (ed.). Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. V: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (ed.). The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. Human Understanding, Vol. I. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. “From Logical Systems to Conceptual Populations.” In [3], pp. 552–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, S. “Rationality and Scientific Discovery.” In [53], pp. 387–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, S. “Scientific Strategies and Historical Change.” In [55], pp. 401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuomela, R. Theoretical Concepts. New York: Springer Verlag, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahar, E. “Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 24 (1973): 95–123 and 223–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar