Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:08:09.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problems with the Deductivist Image of Scientific Reasoning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Philip Catton
Philip Catton*
Affiliation:
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
*
†Mailing address: Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand. e-mail: p.catton@phil.canterbury.ac.nz.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There seem to be some very good reasons for a philosopher of science to be a deductivist about scientific reasoning. Deductivism is apparently connected with a demand for clarity and definiteness in the reconstruction of scientists' reasonings. And some philosophers even think that deductivism is the way around the problem of induction. But the deductivist image is challenged by cases of actual scientific reasoning, in which hard-to-state and thus discursively ill-defined elements of thought nonetheless significantly condition what practitioners accept as cogent argument. And arguably, these problem cases abound. For example, even geometry—for most of its history—was such a problem case, despite its exactness and rigor. It took a tremendous effort on the part of Hilbert and others, to make geometry fit the deductivist image. Looking to the empirical sciences, the problems seem worse. Even the most exact and rigorous of empirical sciences—mechanics—is still the kind of problem case which geometry once was. In order for the deductivist image to fit mechanics, Hilbert's sixth problem (for mechanics) would need to be solved. This is a difficult, and perhaps ultimately impossible task, in which the success so far achieved is very limited. I shall explore some consequences of this for realism as well as for deductivism. Through discussing links between non-monotonicity, skills, meaning, globality in cognition, models, scientific understanding, and the ideal of rational unification, I argue that deductivists can defend their image of scientific reasoning only by trivializing it, and that for the adequate illumination of science, insights from anti-deductivism are needed as much as those which come from deductivism.

Type
Explanation, Confirmation, and Scientific Inference
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 66 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers Sep., 1999 , 1999 , pp. S452 - S473
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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

‡

I am grateful for discussions with Otávio Bueno, Steven French, David Gunn, Alan Musgrave, and particularly Robert Stoothoff.

References

Aristotle (1984), The Complete Works of Aristotle, 2 vols. Barnes, Jonathan (ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bueno, Otávio and de Souza, Edelcio G. (1996), “The Concept of Quasi-Truth”, Logique & Analyze 153–154: 183–199.Google Scholar
Corry, Leo (1997), “David Hilbert and the Axiomatization of Physics 1894–1905”, Archive for the History of Exact Sciences 51: 83–198.10.1007/BF00375141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Da Costa, Newton C. A. and French, Steven (1989), “Pragmatic Truth and the Logic of Induction”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40: 333–356.10.1093/bjps/40.3.333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Euclid (1956), The Elements. Translated by Heath, Thomas L. New York: Dover.10.1063/1.3060073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, Steven (1997), “Partiality, Pursuit and Practice”, in Dalla Chiara, M. L. et al. (eds.), Structures and Norms in Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Michael (1974), “Explanation and Scientific Understanding”, Journal of Philosophy 71: 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Michael. (1992), Kant and the Exact Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Glymour, Clark (1992), Thinking Things Through: An Introduction to Philosophical Issues and Achievements. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grant, Edward (1977), Physical Sciences in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, Adolf and Salmon, Wesley C. (eds.) (1988), The Limitations of Deductivism. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gunn, David (n.d.), “Notes on Jones-Musgrave”. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Gunn, David (n.d.), (1997), Test-theory Methodology in Physics. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Hilbert, David ([1900] 1976), “Mathematical Problems: Lecture Delivered Before the International Congress of Mathematicians at Paris in 1900”, Mary Winston Newson (trans.), in Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics 28: 1–24.Google Scholar
Hilbert, David. (1910), The Foundations of Geometry. Translated by Townsend, E. J. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Jones, Roger (1991), “Realism About What?”, Philosophy of Science 58: 185–202.10.1086/289611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1976), “Explanation, Conjunction and Unification”, Journal of Philosophy 73: 207–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip and Salmon, Wesley C. (eds.) (1989), Scientific Explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Musgrave, Alan (1981), “Wittgensteinian Instrumentalism”, Theoria 47: 65–105.Google Scholar
Musgrave, Alan. (1988), “The Ultimate Argument for Scientific Realism”, in Nola, Robert (ed.), Relativism and Realism in Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musgrave, Alan. (1989), “Deductive Heuristics”, in Gavroglu, K., Goudaroulis, Y., and Nioclacopoulos, P. (eds.), Imre Lakatos and Theories of Scientific Change. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musgrave, Alan. (1992), “Discussion: Realism about What?”, Philosophy of Science 59: 691–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plato (1997), Complete Works. Cooper, John M. (ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Truesdell, Clifford (1966), Six Lectures on Modern Natural Philosophy. New York: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/978-3-662-29756-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truesdell, Clifford. (1984), An Idiot's Fugitive Essays on Science: Methods, Criticism, Training, Circumstances. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar