Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-qfg88 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-10T12:03:16.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stanford’s Unconceived Alternatives from the Perspective of Epistemic Obligations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Matthew S. Sample
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kyle Stanford’s reformulation of the problem of underdetermination has the potential to highlight the epistemic obligations of scientists. Stanford, however, presents the phenomenon of unconceived alternatives as a problem for realists, despite critics’ insistence that we have contextual explanations for scientists’ failure to conceive of their successors’ theories. I propose that responsibilist epistemology and the concept of “role oughts,” as discussed by Lorraine Code and Richard Feldman, can pacify Stanford’s critics and reveal broader relevance of the “new induction.” The possibility of unconceived alternatives pushes us to question our contemporary expectation for scientists to reason outside of their historical moment.

Type
Realism
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 82 , Issue 5 , December 2015 , pp. 856 - 866
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

Code, Lorraine. 1987. Epistemic Responsibility. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 1992. Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Feldman, Richard. 2000. “The Ethics of Belief.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (3): 667–95.10.2307/2653823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukla, Andrè. 1996. “Does Every Theory Have Empirically Equivalent Rivals?” Erkenntnis 44 (2): 137–66.10.1007/BF00166499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnus, P. D. 2006. “What’s New about the New Induction?” Synthese 148 (2): 295–301.10.1007/s11229-004-6223-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, J. D. 2008. “Must Evidence Underdetermine Theory?” In The Challenge of the Social and the Pressure of Practice: Science and Values Revisited, ed. Howard, D., Carrier, M., and Kourany, J., 17–44. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.10.2307/j.ctt9qh7nh.5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saatsi, Juha. 2009. “Grasping at Realist Straws: Review Symposium.” Metascience 18 (3): 355–90.10.1007/s11016-009-9299-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanford, Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0195174089.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanford, Kyle 2009. “Author’s Response.” In “Grasping at Realist Straws: Review Symposium.” Metascience 18 (3): 355–90.Google Scholar
Stanford, Kyle 2013. “Underdetermination of Scientific Theory.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/scientific-underdetermination/.Google Scholar
Winther, Rasmus G. 2009. “A Dialogue.” In “Grasping at Realist Straws: Review Symposium.” Metascience 18 (3): 355–90.Google Scholar