Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:53:45.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is There a Scientific Method?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2017

Stephenie G. Edgerton
Stephenie G. Edgerton*
Affiliation:
New York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Essay Reviews
Information
History of Education Quarterly , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , Winter 1969 , pp. 492 - 496
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 History of Education Quarterly 

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

Notes

1. Einstein, Albert, On the Method of Theoretical Physics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1933), p. 5.Google Scholar

2. An example of this former classroom procedure may be found in Hempel, Carl G., Philosophy of Natural Science (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966), p. 3ff.Google Scholar

3. Popper, Karl R., Conjectures and Refutations (New York: Basic Books, 1963.)Google Scholar

Popper, Karl R., The Logic of Scientific Discovery, English ed. (New York: Basic Books, 1959.)Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.)Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S., The Copernican Revolution (New York: Random House, 1959.)Google Scholar

4. Interest in the sociology of science has flourished in the last ten years; see Hagstrom, Warren O., The Scientific Community (New York: Basic Books, 1964.); Klaw, Spencer, The New Brahmins (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1968.) Google Scholar

5. Reference is made to the works of P. K. Feyerabend, Joseph Agassi, J. J. C. Smart, Ian C. Jarvie, Mario Bunge, W. W. Bartley, among others.Google Scholar

6. Reference is made to the works of Carl G. Hempel, Ernest Nagel, May Brodbeck, Mary Hesse, Nelson Goodman, Isaac Levi, Henry Kyburg, Max Wartofsky, among others.Google Scholar

7. A major exception is Hanson, Norwood Russell, Patterns of Discovery (Cambridge: University Press, 1958.)Google Scholar

8. An example may be found in Kyburg, Henry Jr., Philosophy of Science (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1968) p. 5. “There also are those, like K. R. Popper, who take the logic of evidential support to be simply the logic of tests of hypotheses; but this is essentially just classical deductive logic….” Google Scholar

9. The argument centers on the problem of induction; for recent discussion see Lakatos, Imre, ed., The Problem of Inductive Logic (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Agassi, Joseph, “The Confusion Between Science and Technology in the Standard Philosophies of Science,” Technology and Culture, VII (Summer 1966), p. 348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Edgerton, Stephenie G., “Have We Really Talked Enough About Authority?” Studies in Philosophy and Education, VI (Spring, 1969), p. 369. Bartley, William W., Retreat to Commitment (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1962.) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Bunge, Mario, Scientific Research I (New York: Springer-Verlag, Inc. 1967.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Ibid., p. 171.Google Scholar