Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:43:29.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contextual Falsification and Scientific Methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Jarrett Leplin
Jarrett Leplin*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent discussion of the problem of the conclusive falsification of scientific hypotheses has generally regarded the Duhemian Thesis (D-Thesis) as both true and interesting [10] but has dismissed the claim that disconfirmed hypotheses can be retained in explanations of the disconfirming evidence as either trivial [3] or unargued [12]. This paper rejects these positions. First, the status, in the argument for the D-Thesis, of the claim that auxiliary assumptions are necessary for the derivation of evidential propositions from hypotheses is examined. It is concluded that depending on this status, the D-Thesis is either trivially true or unargued. Then the retention of contextually disconfirmed hypotheses is discussed. It is found that the use of such hypotheses in explanations of the disconfirming evidence is mediated by principles of scientific methodology. A new thesis is presented connecting the problem of conclusive falsification with changes in methodology. The argument for this thesis introduces a new analysis of methodological principles as inductive generalizations from scientific practice. Finally, the contribution of this analysis to the understanding of scientific change is described.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , December 1972 , pp. 476 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © 1972 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

[1] Bohr, N., Kramers, H. A., Slater, J. C. “The Quantum Theory of Radiation.” Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science sixth series, 1924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Duhem, P. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. New York: Atheneum, 1962.Google Scholar
[3] Grünbaum, A. Philosophical Problems of Space and Time. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963.Google Scholar
[4] Grünbaum, A. “The Special Theory of Relativity as a Case Study of the Importance of the Philosophy of Science for the History of Science.” Delaware Seminar in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. II. New York: Interscience, 1963.Google Scholar
[5] Grünbaum, A. “The Bearing of Philosophy on the History of Science.” Science 143 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Lakatos, I. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs.” in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. E. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.10.1017/CBO9781139171434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Newton, I. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Translation by F. Cajori. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960.Google Scholar
[8] Putnam, H. “The Analytic and The Synthetic.” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. III. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1962.Google Scholar
[9] Quine, W. V. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” in From a Logical Point of View. New York: Harper and Row, 1963.Google Scholar
[10] Quinn, P. “The Status of the D-Thesis.” Philosophy of Science 36 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Shapere, D. “Notes Towards a Post-Positivistic Interpretation of Science.” In Achinstein, P. and Barker, S., The Legacy of Logical Positivism. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1969.Google Scholar
[12] Wedeking, G. “Duhem, Quine, and Grünbaum on Falsification.” Philosophy of Science 36 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar