Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T12:48:05.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Catastrophism, Uniformitarianism, and a Scientific Realism Debate That Makes a Difference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

P. Kyle Stanford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some scientific realists suggest that scientific communities have improved in their ability to discover alternative theoretical possibilities and that the problem of unconceived alternatives therefore poses a less significant threat to contemporary scientific communities than it did to their historical predecessors. I first argue that the most profound and fundamental historical transformations of the scientific enterprise have actually increased rather than decreased our vulnerability to the problem. I then argue that whether we are troubled by even the prospect of increasing theoretical conservatism in science should depend on the position we occupy in the ongoing debate concerning scientific realism itself.

Type
Realism
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 82 , Issue 5 , December 2015 , pp. 867 - 878
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

I would like to acknowledge useful discussions concerning the material in this paper with Kevin Zollman, Penelope Maddy, Jeff Barrett, Pat Forber, Peter Godfrey-Smith, Steve Shapin, Fred Kronz, John Norton, Michael Weisberg, Jane Maienschein, Julia Bursten, Carole Lee, and Arash Pessian, as well as audiences at the Durham University Conference on Unconceived Alternatives and Scientific Realism, the University of Vienna’s (Un)Conceived Alternatives Symposium, the University of Pittsburgh’s Conference on Choosing the Future of Science, Lingnan University’s “Science: The Real Thing?” Conference, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Cambridge University, the University of Vienna, the University of Pennsylvania, UC San Diego, the University of Washington, the University of Western Ontario, the Pittsburgh Center for the Philosophy of Science, Washington University in St. Louis, Bloomsburg University, Indiana University, the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Mexico City, and the Australian National University. Parts of this paper were written while I was the Senior Fellow at the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for the Philosophy of Science and while I was a Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University, and I gratefully acknowledge the support of both institutions.

References

Bement, A. L. 2007. “Important Notice 130: Transformative Research.” National Science Foundation, Office of the Director, September 24. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/in130/in130.jsp.Google Scholar
Bowler, P. J., and Morus, I. R.. 2005. Making Modern Science: A Historical Survey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, V. 1945. Science: The Endless Frontier. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Chubin, D. E., and Hackett, E. J.. 1990. Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Forber, P. 2008. “Forever Beyond Our Grasp?” Biology and Philosophy 23:135–41.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. 2008. “Recurrent Transient Underdetermination and the Glass Half Full.” Philosophical Studies 137:141–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, M. J. 1977. “Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System.” Cognitive Therapy and Research 1:161–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council. 2005. Bridges to Independence: Fostering the Independence ofNew Investigators in Biomedical Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Resch, K. I., Ernst, E., and Garrow, J.. 2000. “A Randomized Controlled Study of Reviewer Bias against an Unconventional Therapy.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 93:164–67.10.1177/014107680009300402CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rudwick, M. J. S. 1985. The Great Devonian Controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, S. 2008. The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226750170.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanford, P. Kyle Forthcoming. “Conservatism in Science and Unconceived Alternatives: The Impact of Professionalization, Peer-Review, and Big Science.” Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-015-0856-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar