Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:15:35.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On The Intertheoretic Competition Hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

A. David Kline
A. David Kline*
Affiliation:
Iowa State University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A commonplace thesis of the “new philosophy of science” is the view that the testing of a given theory is not a simple comparison of the theory with nature but also requires the comparison of the theory with competing theories. More specifically the version of the intertheoretic competition thesis that shall be examined is as follows:

(ITC) In addition to comparing a theory with nature, a necessary condition for the rejection of a theory is the acceptance of an alternative theory.

It is Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that is responsible for the widespread popularity of (ITC).1,2

…a scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternative candidate is available to take its place. No process yet disclosed by the historical study of scientific development at all resembles the methodological stereotype of falsification by direct comparison with nature. …the act of judgment that leads scientists to reject a previously accepted theory is always based upon more than a comparison of that theory with the world.

Type
Part II. Epistemology and the Dynamics of Science
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1988 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1988 , 1988 , pp. 32 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1988

References

Feyerabend, P. (1965). “Problems of Empiricism.” In Beyond the Edge of Certainty. Edited by Colodny, R.. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Pp. 145–260.Google Scholar
Grunbaum, A. (1960). “The Duhemian Argument.” Philosophy of Science 27: 75–87. (As reprinted in Harding (1976). Pp. 116-131.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, S. (ed.). (1976). Can Theories Be Refuted? Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1965). “Grunbaum on ‘The Duhemian Argument’.” Philosophy of Science 32: 295–299. (As reprinted in Harding (1976). Pp. 155-161.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laymon, R. (1977). “Feyerabend, Brownian Motion, and the Hiddenness of Refuting Facts.” Philosophy of Science 44: 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laymon, R. (1978). “Newton’s Advertised Precision and His Refutation of the Received Laws of Refraction.” In Studies In Perception. Edited by Machamer, P. and Turnbull, R. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Pp. 231–258.Google Scholar
McGucken, W. (1969). Nineteenth-Century Spectroscopy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. (1939). “Principles of the Theory of Probability.” In International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Vol.I. Edited by Neurath, O.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp. 343–422.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1974). “Replies to My Critics.” In The Philosophy of Karl Popper. Book II. Edited by Schilipp, P.. Lasalle: Open Court. Pp. 961–1197.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1974). “The ‘Corroboration’ of Theories.” In The Philosophy of Karl Popper. Book I. Edited by Schilipp, P.. Lasalle: Open Court. Pp. 221–240.Google Scholar