Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T00:16:00.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discussion: Rationality and Anemia (Response To Baigrie)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Harvey Siegel
Harvey Siegel*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy University of Miami
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In his (1988), Brian Baigrie criticizes my earlier discussion of the rationality of science (Siegel 1985). In this response, I argue that (1) Baigrie misses the point of my tripartite distinction between different questions one can ask about science's rationality, (2) Baigrie's argument that the history of the development of methodological principles is crucial to philosophical discussion of the rationality of science is flawed, and (3) Baigrie's charge that my view is “anemic” rests on a failure to appreciate the point of my tripartite distinction.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , September 1988 , pp. 442 - 447
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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.)

References

REFERENCES

Baigrie, B. S. (1988), “Discussion: Siegel on the Rationality of Science”, Philosophy of Science 55: 435–441.10.1086/289448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, H. (1981), “Creationism, Evolution, and Education: The California Fiasco”, Phi Delta Kappan 63: 95–101.Google Scholar
Siegel, H. (1984), “The Response to Creationism”, Educational Studies 15: 349–364.10.1207/s15326993es1504_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, H. (1985), “What is the Question Concerning the Rationality of Science?”, Philosophy of Science 52: 517–537.10.1086/289273CrossRefGoogle Scholar