Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:17:16.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Theory-Dependence of the Use of Instruments in Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Alan Chalmers
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The idea that the use of instruments in science is theory-dependent seems to threaten the extent to which the output of those instruments can act as an independent arbiter of theory. This issue is explored by studying an early use of the electron microscope to observe dislocations in crystals. It is shown that this usage did indeed involve the theory of the electron microscope but that, nevertheless, it was possible to argue strongly for the experimental results, the theory of dislocations being tested, and the theory of the instrument, all at the same time.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 70 , Issue 3 , July 2003 , pp. 493 - 509
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

References

Braun, Ernst (1992), “Mechanical Properties of Solids” in Hoddeson, Lillian, Braun, Ernst, Teichmann, John, and Weart, Spencer (eds.), Out of the Crystal Maze: Chapters from the History of Solid State Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 317–358.Google Scholar
Chalice, C. (1957), “Summarised Proceedings of a Conference on Electron Microscopy, Reading, July 1956”, Summarised Proceedings of a Conference on Electron Microscopy, Reading, July 1956 8:259–269.Google Scholar
Collins, Harry M. (1985), Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian (1983), Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch Peter, R. Horne, and Whelan, Michael (1956), “Direct Observations of the Arrangement and Motion of Dislocations in Aluminium”, Direct Observations of the Arrangement and Motion of Dislocations in Aluminium 1:677–684.Google Scholar
Howie, A., and Whelan, Michael (1962), “Diffraction Contrast of Electron Microscope Images of Crystal Lattice Defects III: Results and Experimental Confirmation of the Dynamical Theory of Dislocation Image Contrast”, Diffraction Contrast of Electron Microscope Images of Crystal Lattice Defects III: Results and Experimental Confirmation of the Dynamical Theory of Dislocation Image Contrast 267:206–230.Google Scholar
Kosso, Peter (1988), “Dimensions of Observability”, Dimensions of Observability 39:449–67.Google Scholar
Kosso, Peter (1989), “Science and Objectivity”, Science and Objectivity 86:245–257.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1973), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Maxwell, James Clerk ([1856] 1884), “Are there Real Analogies in Nature?” in Campbell, L. and Garnett, W., The Life of James Clerk Maxwell. 2d. ed. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mayo, Deborah G. (1996), Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menter, J. (1956), “The Direct Study by Electron Microscopy of Crystal Lattices and Their Imperfections”, The Direct Study by Electron Microscopy of Crystal Lattices and Their Imperfections A 236:119–135.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, Nicolas (1997), Picture Control: The Electron Microscope and the Transformation of Biology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, Nicolas, and Chalmers, Alan (2001), “The Role of Theory in the Use of Instruments: or, How Much Do We Need to Know About Electrons to Do Science with an Electron Microscope?”, in Buchwald, Jed and Warwick, Andrew (eds.), Histories of the Electron: The Birth of Microphysics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Neil (1994), “The Power of ARCHED Hypotheses: Feyerabend’s Galileo as a Closet Rationalist”, The Power of ARCHED Hypotheses: Feyerabend’s Galileo as a Closet Rationalist 45:255–264.Google Scholar
Thomason, Neil (1996), “Elk Theories–A Galilean Strategy for Validating a New Scientific Discovery”, in Riggs, Peter (ed.), Natural Kinds, Natural Laws and Scientific Methodology. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 123–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whelan, Michael, and Hirsch, Peter (1956), “Electron Diffraction from Crystals Containing Stacking Faults”, Electron Diffraction from Crystals Containing Stacking Faults 1:1121–1142 and 1303–1324.Google Scholar