Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:30:26.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Philosophy of Science Naturalized

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Ronald N. Giere
Ronald N. Giere*
Affiliation:
Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In arguing a “role for history,“ Kuhn was proposing a naturalized philosophy of science. That, I argue, is the only viable approach to the philosophy of science. I begin by exhibiting the main general objections to a naturalistic approach. These objections, I suggest, are equally powerful against nonnaturalistic accounts. I review the failure of two nonnaturalistic approaches, methodological foundationism (Carnap, Reichenbach, and Popper) and metamethodology (Lakatos and Laudan). The correct response, I suggest, is to adopt an “evolutionary perspective.” This perspective is defended against one recent critic (Putnam). To argue the plausibility of a naturalistic approach, I next sketch a naturalistic account of theories and of theory choice. This account is then illustrated by the recent revolution in geology. In conclusion I return to Kuhn's question about the role of history in developing a naturalistic theory of science.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , September 1985 , pp. 331 - 356
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 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

†

The support of the National Science Foundation is hereby gratefully acknowledged. My colleagues at Indiana and a reviewer supplied many helpful suggestions.

References

REFERENCES

Campbell, D. R. (1974), “Evolutionary Epistemology”, in The Philosophy of Karl Popper, Schilpp, P. A. (ed.). La Salle: Open Court, pp. 413–63.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. [1950] (1962), Logical Foundations of Probability. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. D. (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (1979), Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchland, P. S., and Churchland, P. M. (1983), “Stalking the Wild Epistemic Engine”, Noûs 17: 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. (1984), “And Not Anti-Realism Either”, Noûs 18: 51–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frankel, H. (1982), “The Development, Reception and Acceptance of the Vine-Matthews-Morley Hypothesis”, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 13: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. (1979), “Truth and Confirmation”, The Journal of Philosophy 76: 361–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. N. (1973), “History and Philosophy of Science: Intimate Relationship or Marriage of Convenience?”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24: 282–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. N. (1975), “The Epistemological Roots of Scientific Knowledge”, in Induction, Probability, and Confirmation, Maxwell, G. and Anderson, R. M. Jr. (eds.). Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 6. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 212–61.Google Scholar
Giere, R. N. (1979), “Foundations of Probability and Statistical Inference”, in Current Research in Philosophy of Science, Asquith, P. D. and Kyburg, Henry E. Jr. (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 503–33.Google Scholar
Giere, R. N. (1984), “Toward a Unified Theory of Science”, in Science and Reality, Cushing, J. T., Delaney, C. F., and Gutting, G. (eds.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Giere, R. N. (forthcoming), “Constructive Realism”, in Images of Science, Churchland, P. M. and Hooker, C. (eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1968), “One Problem about Induction”, in The Problem of Inductive Logic, Lakatos, I. (ed.). Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 44–58.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1983), “Valuation and Objectivity in Science”, in Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis, Cohen, R. S. and Laudan, L. (eds.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 73–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. [1962] (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. (1973), “Carnap's Inductive Logic”, Synthese 25: 299–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970), “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes”, in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1971), “History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions”, in PSA 1970, Cohen, R. S. and Buck, R. C. (eds.). Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 8. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 91–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1977), Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1984), Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, R. (1981), “The Recent Revolution in Geology and Kuhn's Theory of Scientific Change”, in PSA 1978, Asquith, P. D. and Hacking, I. (eds.). Vol. 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 227–39.Google Scholar
O'Keefe, J., and Nadel, L. (1978), The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pellionisz, A., and Llinas, R. (1982), “Space-Time Representation in the Brain: The Cerebellum as a Predictive Space-Time Metric Tensor”, Neuroscience 7: 2949–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popper, K. R. (1972), Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1978), Meaning and the Moral Sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1981), Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1982), “Why Reason Can't Be Naturalized”, Synthese 52: 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H., and Oppenheim, R. (1958), “Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis”, in Concepts, Theories and the Mind-Body Problem, Feigl, H., Scriven, M., and Maxwell, G. (eds.). Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3–36.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1969), “Epistemology Naturalized”, in Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, M. (1981), “What Kind of a Revolution Occurred in Geology?”, in PSA 1978, Asquith, P. D. and Hacking, I. (eds.). Vol. 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 240–73.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1984), Reason and the Search for Knowledge. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Shimony, A. (1971), “Perception from an Evolutionary Point of View,” The Journal of Philosophy 67: 571–83.Google Scholar
Shimony, A. (1981), “Integral Epistemology”, in Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences, Brewer, M. B. and Collins, B. E. (eds.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 98–123.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1972), “Theories of Bounded Rationality”, in Decision and Organization, Radner, R. and McGuire, C. B. (eds.). Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 161–76.Google Scholar
Sneed, J. D. (1971), The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegmüller, W. (1979), The Structuralist View of Theories. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, F. (1973), “Theories, Their Formulations, and the Operational Imperative”, Synthese 25: 129–64.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1972), Human Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegener, A. (1966), The Origin of Continents and Oceans. New York: Dover.Google Scholar