Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:54:00.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Well-Ordered Science: Evidence for Use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Nancy Cartwright
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article agrees with Philip Kitcher that we should aim for a well-ordered science, one that answers the right questions in the right ways. Crucial to this is to address questions of use: Which scientific account is right for which system in which circumstances? This is a difficult question: evidence that may support a scientific claim in one context may not support it in another. Drawing on examples in physics and other sciences, this article argues that work on the warrant of theories in philosophy of science needs to change. Emphasis should move from the warrant of theories in the abstract to questions of evidence for use.

Type
How Should Philosophy of Science be Socially Relevant?
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 73 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2004 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers. Edited by Miriam Solomon , December 2006 , pp. 981 - 990
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.)

Footnotes

‡

I am very grateful to the Latsis foundation, the British Academy, the National Science Foundation, and a London School of Economics and Political Science–Columbia project grant for support on this research and to Philip Kitcher, Julian Reiss, and Damien Fennell for help with ideas and presentation. (The material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant no. 0322579. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Science Foundation.)

References

Cartwright, Nancy (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (1999), The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, Michael, and Hendry, David (2002), “An Overview of Economic Forecasting,” in Clements, Michael and Hendry, David (eds.), A Companion to Economic Forecasting. Oxford: Blackwell, 1–18.Google Scholar
Galison, Peter (1987), How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Galison, Peter (1997), Image and Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Holland, Paul (1986), “Statistics and Causal Inference,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 81:945–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (2001), Science, Truth and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmot, Michael (2004), Status Syndrome: How Your Social Standing Directly Affects Your Health and Life Expectancy. London: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, Nicholas (1984), From Knowledge to Wisdom: A Revolution in the Aims and Methods of Science. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart (1836), “On the Definition of Political Economy and the Method of Philosophical Investigation Proper to It,” in Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. 4, J. M. Robson (ed.), Essays on Economics and Society. Toronto: Toronto University Press.Google Scholar
Raab, Markus, and Gigerenzer, Gerd (2005), “Intelligence as Smart Heuristics,” in Sternberg, Robert and Pretz, Jean (eds.), Cognition and Intelligence: Identifying the Mechanisms of the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ravetz, Jerome (1999), “What Is Post-normal Science?” Futures 31:647–653.Google Scholar
Ravetz, Jerome (2000), “The Future Politics of Science,” Futures 32:505–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravetz, Jerome (2002), “Food Safety, Quality and Ethics—a Post-normal Perspective,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15:255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Donald (1974), “Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies,” Journal of Educational Psychology 66:688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiglitz, Joseph (2002), Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Wook Yi, Sang (2001), How to Model Macroscopic Worlds: Towards the Philosophy of Condensed Matter Physics. PhD Dissertation. London: University of London.Google Scholar