Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T16:18:41.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations as the Building Blocks of Science in 20th-Century Scientific Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

J. O. Wisdom
J. O. Wisdom*
Affiliation:
York University, Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although there continue to be many interpretations of the nature of science, not simply thought up from afar by philosophers, but in the highest ranks of scientific circles, there are only a few that are significantly different from one another and influential (Wisdom, 1971). I shall confine myself to instrumentalism, conventionalism, and induction. (I shall omit even operationalism as being easily subsumable under conventionalism.) The main thesis will be that they constitute different ways of regarding knowledge as rooted in pure observation, and that the philosophy of observationalism they presuppose is false. The falsifiability interpretation does not view knowledge in this way and is not discussed here.

Whatever the shortcomings of these three positions may be, however, firmly held or rejected they may be according as one assesses existing criticisms, these criticisms mainly lead to a judicial appraisal without pointing to anything new.

Type
Contributed Papers
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1970 , 1970 , pp. 212 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1970

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

Agassi, J., ‘Sensationalism’, Mind 75 (1966a), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agassi, J., ‘The Need for Corroboration’, Technology and Culture 7 (1966b).Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K., ‘Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism’, Scientific Explanation, Space and Time, in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science Vol. III (ed. by Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G.), Minneapolis 1962, pp. 28–97.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I., ‘Changes in the Problem of Inductive Logic’, London Colloquium on the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 3, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1968, pp. 315f.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R., The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London and New York 1959.Google Scholar
Skolimowski, H., ‘Knowledge, Language, and Rationality’, in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4, Humanities Press, N.Y., 1969, pp. 184-5.Google Scholar
Synge, J. L., personal communication, 1970.Google Scholar
Wisdom, J. O., ‘Four Contemporary Interpretations of the Nature of Science’, Foundations of Physics 1 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar