Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T20:00:23.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Rationality of Scientific Discovery Part I: The Traditional Rationality Problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Nicholas Maxwell
Nicholas Maxwell*
Affiliation:
University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The basic task of the essay is to exhibit science as a rational enterprise. I argue that in order to do this we need to change quite fundamentally our whole conception of science.

Today it is rather generally taken for granted that a precondition for science to be rational is that in science we do not make substantial assumptions about the world, or about the phenomena we are investigating, which are held permanently immune from empirical appraisal. According to this standard view, science is rational precisely because science does not make a priori metaphysical presuppositions about the world forever preserved from possible empirical refutation. It is of course accepted that an individual scientist, developing a new theory, may well be influenced by his own metaphysical presuppositions. In addition, it is acknowledged that a successful scientific theory, within the context of a particular research program, may be protected for a while from refutation, thus acquiring a kind of temporary metaphysical status, as long as the program continues to be empirically progressive. All such views unite, however, in maintaining that science cannot make permanent metaphysical presuppositions, held permanently immune from objective empirical evaluation. According to this standard view, the rationality of science arises, not from the way in which new theories are discovered, but rather from the way in which already formulated theories are appraised in the light of empirical considerations. And the fundamental problem of the rationality of science—the Humean problem of induction—concerns precisely the crucial issue of the rationality of accepting theories in the light of evidence.

In this essay I argue that this widely accepted standard conception of science must be completely rejected if we are to see science as a rational enterprise. In order to assess the rationality of accepting a theory in the light of evidence it is essential to consider the ultimate aims of science. This is because adopting different aims for science will lead us, quite rationally, to accept different theories in the light of evidence. I argue that a basic aim of science is to explain. At the outset science simply presupposes, in a completely a priori fashion, that explanations can be found, that the world is ultimately intelligible or simple. In other words, science simply presupposes in an a priori way the metaphysical thesis that the world is intelligible, and then seeks to convert this presupposed metaphysical theory into a testable scientific theory. Scientific theories are only accepted insofar as they promise to help us realize this fundamental aim.

At once a crucial problem arises. If scientific theories are only accepted insofar as they promise to lead us towards articulating a presupposed metaphysical theory, it is clearly essential that we can choose rationally, in an a priori way, between all the very different possible metaphysical theories that can be thought up, all the very different ways in which the universe might ultimately be intelligible. For holding different aims, accepting different metaphysical theories conceived of as blueprints for future scientific theories will, quite rationally, lead us to accept different scientific theories. Thus it is only if we can choose rationally between conflicting metaphysical blueprints for future scientific theories that we will be in a position to appraise rationally the acceptability of our present day scientific theories. We thus face the crucial problem: How can we choose rationally between conflicting possible aims for science, conflicting metaphysical blueprints for future scientific theories? It is only if we can solve this fundamental problem concerning the aims of science that we can be in a position to appraise rationally the acceptability of existing scientific theories.

There is a further point here. If we could choose rationally between rival aims, rival metaphysical blueprints for future scientific theories, then we would in effect have a rational method for the discovery of new scientific theories! Thus we reach the result: there is only a rational method for the appraisal of existing scientific theories if there is a rational method of discovery.

I shall argue that the aim-oriented theory of scientific inquiry to be advocated here succeeds in exhibiting science as a rational enterprise in that it succeeds in providing a rational procedure for choosing between rival metaphysical blueprints: it thus provides a rational, if fallible, method of discovery, and a rational method for the appraisal of existing scientific theories—thus resolving the Humean problem.

In Part I of the essay I argue that the orthodox conception of science fails to exhibit science as a rational enterprise because it fails to solve the Humean problem of induction. The presuppositional view advocated here does however succeed in resolving the Humean problem. In Part II of the essay I spell out the new aim-oriented theory of scientific method that becomes inevitable once we accept the basic presuppositional viewpoint. I argue that this new aim oriented conception of scientific method is essentially a rational method of scientific discovery, and that the theory has important implications for scientific practice.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , June 1974 , pp. 123 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © 1974 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.)

Footnotes

Part II of this essay will appear in the succeeding issue of Philosophy of Science.

†

I wish to express my thanks to L. Briskman, D. Crowell and J. Shearmur for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this essay.

References

REFERENCES

[1] Ayer, A. J. The Problem of Knowledge. Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1965.Google Scholar
[2] Barker, S. F. Induction and Hypothesis: A Study of the Logic of Confirmation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
[3] Duhem, P. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. New York: Atheneum, 1962.Google Scholar
[4] Einstein, A. Ideas and Opinions. London: Alvin Redman, 1954.Google Scholar
[5] Goodman, N. Fact, Fiction and Forecast. London: Athlone Press, 1954.Google Scholar
[6] Goodman, N. Problems and Projects. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1972.Google Scholar
[7] Hempel, C. G. Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free Press, 1965.Google Scholar
[8] Hume, D. A Treatise of Human Nature. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1959.Google Scholar
[9] Jeffreys, H. Scientific Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
[10] Kant, I. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by N. K. Smith. London: Macmillan and Co., 1961.Google Scholar
[11] Koyré, A. Metaphysics and Measurement. London: Methuen, 1973.Google Scholar
[12] Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.Google Scholar
[13] Kuhn, T. S. “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?” and “Reflections on my Critics.” in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
[14] Lakatos, I. “Criticism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 69 (1968): 149–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15] Lakatos, I. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” in Criticisms and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16] Lakatos, I. “History and its Rational Reconstructions.” in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 8. Edited by R. C. Buck and R. S. Cohen. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1971.Google Scholar
[17] Mach, E. “The Guiding Principles of My Scientific Theory of Knowledge and Its Reception by My Contemporaries.” in Physical Reality. Edited by Toulmin, S. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1970.Google Scholar
[18] Maxwell, N. “Can there be Necessary Connections between Successive Events?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 19 (1968): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19] Maxwell, N. “A Critique of Popper's Views on Scientific Method.” Philosophy of Science 39 (1972): 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20] Maxwell, N. The Aims of Science. (forthcoming)Google Scholar
[21] Meyerson, E. Identity and Reality. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1930.Google Scholar
[22] Poincaré, H. Quoted in J. Hildebrand, Science in the Making. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
[23] Popper, K. R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson, 1959.Google Scholar
[24] Popper, K. R. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963.Google Scholar
[25] Popper, K. R. Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
[26] Reichenbach, H. The Rise of Scientific Philosophy. Berkeley: Univeristy of California Press, 1958.Google Scholar
[27] Russell, B. Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1948.Google Scholar
[28] Rudner, R. S. “An Introduction to Simplicity.” Philosophy of Science 28 (1961): 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[29] Scheffler, I. The Anatomy of Inquiry. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963.Google Scholar
[30] Swinburne, R. G. “Choosing Between Confirmation Theories.” Philosophy of Science 37 (1970): 602–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[31] Swinburne, R. G. (ed.) The Justification of Induction. London: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar