The Philosophy of Science: Science and Objectivity
Publication Year: 1997
Subject: Science, Technology & Society
This comprehensive textbook provides a clear nontechnical introduction to the philosophy of science. Through asking whether science can provide us with objective knowledge of the world, the book provides a thorough and accessible guide to the key thinkers and debates that define the field. George Couvalis surveys traditional themes around theory and observation, induction, probability, falsification and rationality as well as more recent challenges to objectivity including relativistic, feminist and sociological readings. This provides a helpful framework in which to locate the key intellectual contributions to these debates, ranging from those of Mill and Hume, through Popper and Kuhn to Laudan, Bloor and Garfinkel among
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
- Chapter 1: Theory and Observation
- Chapter 2: Induction and Probability
- Chapter 3: Popper and Mill: Fallibility, Falsification and Coherence
- Chapter 4: Revolutionary Change and Rationality: Kuhn and his Rivals
- Chapter 5: Relativism and the Value of Science
- Chapter 6: The Sociology of Knowledge and Feminism
- Chapter 7: Realism and Instrumentalism
© George Couvalis, 1997
First published 1997
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission in writing from the Publishers.
SAGE Publications Ltd
6 Bonhill Street
London ECZA 4PU
SAGE Publications Inc
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd
32, M-Block Market
Greater Kailash – I
New Delhi 110 048
British Library Cataloguing in Publication data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 0 7619 5100 8
ISBN 0 7619 5101 6 (pbk)
Library of Congress catalog record available
Typeset by Photoprint, Torquay
Printed in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Ltd, Broughton Gifford, Melkshar, Wiltshire
Striking features of the modern era are the growth of scientific knowledge and the growth of the power and influence. of the natural sciences. The natural sciences have been widely used as a model for many kinds of human activities and regarded as the acme of human achievement. They have also been widely reviled for distorting human life and veiling crucially important truths. Yet many textbooks on the philosophy of the natural sciences are either unnecessarily technical or simplistic. In addition, many of them fail clearly to connect with fields of general interest, such as epistemology, metaphysics and ethics. Despite this, the philosophy of science has rightly had and continues to have an important influence both within and outside philosophy. A danger posed by its indirect influence is that half understood or dubious views are taken up and used to defend outrageous claims. Sociologists, literary critics and historians are among the worst offenders, but philosophers are by no means immune. There is thus a need for a textbook, for higher education students and academics who have some philosophical knowledge, which presents material in a sophisticated but non-technical manner.
I have tried to meet this need here by discussing central arguments in the literature in a way that makes clear their relevance to a wide range of issues and corrects dubious interpretations of them. I also vigorously present a view of my own as it is important in these times to defend objectivity and realism. The philosophy of science has become too much a technical domain that only indirectly contributes to areas to which it is relevant. It should be intelligently discussed in the mainstream of philosophical thought, as it was in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
The book often refers to important developments in the history of science. Readers do not need to understand any more of either the science or the history than is explained in the text to understand the philosophical relevance of the material discussed. In addition, while the text works through a large number of ideas derived from a variety of sources, I list at the end of every chapter some suggested texts for further reading which require little background knowledge, as well as some texts which require more background. Material referred to in the main text but not in the lists of further reading is generally more suitable for detailed research. However, many of the items listed can be read with profit by any intelligent reader, and people attempting to read this [Page viii]material should not be intimidated by jargon or technical notation. Often key points become clear if one continues reading. In any case, a quick look at encyclopaedias of science and technology or in The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy will often clarify things. The notes to the text take up issues which may be of concern to people who know the philosophical, historical, or scientific literature well. Students should feel free to ignore them.
There are a large number of people I wish to thank. I particularly wish to thank Linda Burns for her useful comments and for coping with me while I was writing. Josep Corbi, Tobies Grimaltos, Graham Nerlich, Belinda Paterson and Ian Ravenscroft have been particularly kind in providing me with helpful comments on many aspects of the book. Richard Brown, Greg Currie, Marty Davies, Gerard O'Brien, Ian Hunt, Pamela Lyon, Chris Mortensen, Ken Sievers and Peter Woolcock have also provided me with useful comments. Sandra Egege proofread the manuscript with great thoroughness. The participants in the Flinders/ Adelaide research seminar series and my students have also made useful suggestions. Catherine Dale, Sally Fraser and Karen Gordon have provided me with some valuable administrative help.
The Department of Epistemology and Metaphysics at the University of Valencia in Spain provided me with a congenial place in which to begin work on the manuscript. I would like to thank the members of the department for their kindness and their comments. Mercedes Torrevejano provided me with every facility a visitor could wish for. Josep Corbi, Carmen Fayos, Alfredo Garriga and Tobies Grimaltos were particularly kind.
The National Technical University of Athens provided with me with administrative help, a room and helpful feedback. I thank the staff and students there, particularly Pantelis Nicolacopoulos.[Page x]
References[Page 197][Page 202]1992) ‘Inference to the best explanation: or who won the Mill-Whewell debate?’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 23: 349–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681%2892%2990039-9(1993) ‘Quine as feminist: the radical import of naturalized epistemology’, in L.Antony and C.Witt (eds), A Mind of One's Own. Boulder: Westview Press. pp. 185–225.(1988) ‘Reply to van Fraassen’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 66: 224–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048408812343311(1991) A Progress of Sentiments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1982) T.S. Kuhn and Social Science. London: Macmillan.(1982) ‘Relativism, rationalism and the sociology of knowledge’, in M.Hollis and S.Lukes (eds), Rationality and Relativism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 21–44.and (1994) ‘Towards a defence of objectivity’, in K.Lennon and M.Whitford (eds), Knowing the Difference. London: Routledge. pp. 79–94.(1991) Knowledge and Social Imagery ((2nd edn). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1992) ‘Sociology of knowledge’, in J.Dancy and E.Sosa (eds), A Companion to Epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 483–6.(1979) Perception, Theory and Commitment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1988) Rationality. London: Routledge.(1994) ‘Reason, judgement and Bayes's Law’, Philosophy of Science, 61: 351–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/289808(1989) The Rational and the Social. London: Routledge.(1988) ‘Philosophy and common sense’, Philosophy, 63: 161–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100043345(1991) ‘What is wrong with the miracle argument’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 22: 23–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681%2891%2990013-I(1986) ‘The Galileo that Feyerabend missed: an improved case against method’ in J.Schuster and R.Yeo (eds), The Politics and Rhetoric of SCientific Method. Dordrecht: Reidel. pp. 1–31.(1990) Science and its Fabrication. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.(1990) ‘Feminism and epistemology’, Metaphilosophy, 21: 367–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.1990.tb00536.x(1979) Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625435(1988), Perceptual plasticity and theoretical neutrality', Philosophy of Science, 55: 167–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/289425(1989) A Neurocomputational Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1994) The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1939) An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method. (abridged edn). London: Routledge.and (1988) ‘Feyerabend and Laymon on brownian motion’, Philosophy of Science, 55: 415–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/289445(1989) Feyerabend's Critique of Foundationalism. Aldershot: Gower.(1973) ‘Illusion and culture’, in R.Gregory and E.Gombrich (eds), Illusion in Nature and Art. London: Duckworth. pp. 161–191.(1969) Philosophical Works of Descartes, Volume 1. Trans. E. Haldane and G.Ross. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.([Page 198]1989) The Politics of Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1991) Darwin. London: Michael Joseph.and (1979) ‘Against incommensurability’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 57: 29–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048407912341021(1981) Designation. New York: Columbia University Press.(1988) Scrutinising Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2855-8(1978) Gali/eo at Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1950) Louis Pasteur. Boston: Little Brown.(1992) Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1961) Knowledge Without Foundations. Oberlin: Oberlin College. (1970) ‘Consolations for the specialist’, in I.Lakatos and A.Musgrave (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 197–230.(1978a) ‘In defence of Aristotle: comments on the condition of content increase’, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 58: 143–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9866-7_7(1978b) Science in a Free Society. London: New Left Books.(1981a) Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method, Philosophical Papers, Volume 1. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171526(1981b) Problems of Empiricism, Philosophical Papers, Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171588(1981c) ‘More clothes from the emperor's bargain basement’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 32: 57–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjps/32.1.57(1988) Against Method ((2nd edn). Udon: Verso.1993) Against Method (3rd edn). London: Verso.(1983) The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1984): Observation reconsidered', Philosophy of Science, 51: 23–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/phos.1984.51.issue-1(1985): Precis of the modularity of mind', Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 8: 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0001921X(1988) ‘A Reply to Churchland's “Perceptual plasticity and theoretical neutrality” ‘, Philosophy of Science, 55: 188–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/289426(1991), ‘The dogma that didn't bark’, Mind, 100: 201–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/C.398.201(1985) Reflections on Gender and Science, New Haven: Yale University Press.(1979) ‘The career of continental drift theory: an application of Imre Lakatos's analysis of scientific growth to the rise of drift theory’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 10: 21–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681%2879%2990003-7(1992) ‘Review of Helen Longino,“Science as Social Knowledge”’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 43: 283–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjps/43.2.283(1995) The Private Science of Louis Pasteur. Princeton: Princeton University Press.(1984) Understanding Scientific Reasoning ((2nd edn). New York: Holt, Reinhart and Wilson.1991) ‘The neurobiology of observation’, Philosophy of Science, 58: 496–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/289632(1986) Epistemology and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1965) Fact, Fiction and Forecast. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.(1983) Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1958) Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1962) ‘Leverrier: the zenith and nadir of Newtonian mechanics’, Isis, 53: 359–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/349597(1991) Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? New York: Cornell UniverSity Press. (1986) Change in View. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1965) Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free Press.(1974) The Structure of Scientific Inference. London: Macmillan.(1986) Induction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press., , and ([Page 199]1989) Scientific Reasoning, The Bayesian Approach. La Salle: Open Court.and (1993) Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions. Tr. A. Levine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1988) Science as a Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1978) A Treatise of Human Nature. 1. Selby-Bigge (ed), revised by P.Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1994) ‘A realist theory of empirical testing’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 24 : 133–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004839319402400201(1980) A perspective on cross-cultural picture perception', in M.Hagen (ed.), The Perception of Pictures, Volume 2. New York Academic Press. pp. 193–226.and (1993) The Advancement of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1993) Inductive Inference and its Natural Ground. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1994) ‘Beyond foundationalism and the coherence theory’, in ‘H.Kornblith (ed.), Naturalising Epistemology ((2nd edn). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 131–461970a) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions ((2nd edn). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1970b) ‘Logic of discovery or psychology of research’, in I.Lakatos and A.Musgrave (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–23.(1970c) ‘Reflections on my critics’ in I.Lakatos and A.Musgrave (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 231–78.(1977) The Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1978) The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, Philosophical Papers Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621123(Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds) (1970) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1977) Progress and its Problems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.(1981) ‘A confutation of convergent realism’, Philosophy of Science, 48: 19–48http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/288975(1984) ‘The pseudo-science of science?’, in J.Brown (ed.), Scientific Rationality: The Sociological Turn. Dordrecht: Reidel. pp. 41–73.(1990) Science and Relativism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1987) From Mineralogy to Geology, the Foundations of a Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1988) Drifting Continents and Shifting Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1994) ‘Critical notice: Philip Kitcher's “The Advancement of Science”’, Philosophy of Science, 61: 666–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/289829(1991) Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routledge.(1983) Science, Folklore and Ideology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1988), ‘Selective adaptation vs. transfer of decrement’, Perception and Psychophysics, 43: 207–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03214201(1990) Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.(1992) ‘The miracle argument for realism’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 23: 267–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681%2892%2990035-5(1982) ‘Conjectural knowledge’, in J.Levinson, (ed.), In Pursuit of Truth. Brighton: Harvester.(1987) Fact and Method. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.(1989) ‘Anything is possible’, Erkenntnis, 30: 319–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00168284(1978) ‘Science corrupted: Victorian biologists consider “the woman question” ’, Journal of the History of Biology, 11: 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00127770(Munévar, G. (ed.) (1991a) Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 132.[Page 200]1991b) ‘Feyerabend's free society’, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 132: 179–98.(1985) ‘Realism vs. constructive empiricism’, in P.Churchland and C.Hooker (eds), Images of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp.197–221.(1992) Values and Valuing, Reflections on the Ethical Life of Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1981) The Rationality of Science. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203317211(1971) The Life of Wilhelm Conrad Rontgen. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.(1994) ‘What does van Fraassen's critique of scientific realism show?’, Monist, 77: 128–44.(1986) The Arch of Knowledge. New York: Methuen.(1993) Philosophical Naturalism. Oxford: Blackwell.(1958) Personal Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1966) The Open Society and its Enemies, (Vol. 2,(5th edn). London: Routledge.1970) ‘Normal science and its dangers’, in 1. Lakatos and A.Musgrave (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 51–8.(1972) Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1976) Unended Quest. Glasgow: Fontana.(1980) The Logic of Scientific Discovery ((10th edn). London: Hutchinson.1995), Marie Curie. London: Heinemann(1992) Whys and Ways of Science. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.(1979) ‘Experimental method and spontaneous generation: the controversy between Pasteur and Pouche!’, Journal of the History of Medicine, 34: 273–92.(1983) ‘The death of spontaneous generation and the birth of the gene: two case studies of relativism’, Social Studies of Science, 13: 481–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631283013004003(1982) Relevant Logics and their Rivals, Volume 1. Atrascadero: Ridgeview., , and (1993) ‘Review of Helen Longino, “Science as Social Knowledge” ’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 23: 562–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004839319302300413(1974) GaIileo, a Philosophical Study. Chicago, MA: University of Chicago Press.(1982) ‘The concept of observation in science and philosophy’, Philosophy of Science, 49: 485–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/289075(1984) Reason and the Search for Knowledge. Dordrecht: Reidel.(1989) John Stuart Mill. London: Routledge.(1963) Philosophy and Scientific Realism. London: Routledge.(1968) Between Science and Philosophy. New York: Random House.(1995) ‘Legend naturalism and scientific progress: an essay on Philip Kitcher's “The Advancement of Science”’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 26: 205–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681%2895%2900003-6(1986) The Rationality of Induction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1995) Newton and the Culture of Newtonianism. New Jersey: Humanities Pressand (1994) ‘The common need for classical epistemological foundations: against a feminist alternative’, Monist, 77: 531–53.(1984) Man and the Natural World, Changing Attitudes in England, 1500–1800. London: Penguin.(1980) The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0198244274.001.0001(1985) ‘Empiricism in the philosophy of science’, in P.Churchland and C.Hooker (eds), Images of Science. Chicago, MA: University of Chicago Press. pp. 245–308.(1989) Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0198248601.001.0001(1994) ‘Gideon Rosen on constructive empiricism’, Philosophical Studies, 74: 179–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00989802(1991) ‘Letter to an anti-liberal liberal’, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 132: 199–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3188-9_8(1982) Science and Scepticism. London: Hutchinson.([Page 201]1968) William Whewell's Theory of Scientific Method, R.Butts (ed.). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.(1992) ‘Representing the heavens, Galileo and visual astronomy’, Isis, 83: 195–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/isis.1992.83.issue-2and (1968) Philosophical Investigations. Tr. G.Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.(1989) ‘Why Popper and Watkins fail to solve the problem of induction’, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 117: 257–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2380-5_16(