Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T05:40:25.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Retrieving the Point of the Realism-Instrumentalism Debate: Mach vs. Planck on Science Education Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Steve Fuller
Steve Fuller*
Affiliation:
University of Durham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The realism-instrumentalism debate (RID) is often seen as the core debate in philosophy of science, yet increasing numbers of philosophers have followed Fine's (1984) lead in questioning the point of this debate. Fine's largely unchallenged rendition of RID makes it is easy to see why. RID appears doomed to stalemate. According to Fine, realists and instrumentalists are both trying to account for the string of progressive episodes in the history of science. The two sides are said to agree on what those episodes are and that they constitute progress. However, it seems that every realist story of one such episode can be matched by an instrumentalist one—and vice versa. As Fine sees it, any such story is merely an attempt to extract surplus philosophical value from the historical labors of scientists. It only adds a misleading air of inevitability to their original efforts.

Type
Part V. Realism and its Guises
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1994 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1994 , 1994 , pp. 200 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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

Albisetti, J. (1983), Secondary School Reform in Imperial Germany. Princeton: Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackmore, J. (1972), Ernst Mach. Berkeley: California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackmore, J. (Ed.) (1992), Ernst Mach—A Deeper Look. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brush, S. (1974), “Should the History of Science Be Rated X?” Science 183: 1164–1183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cassirer, E. ([1910] 1923), Substance and Function. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1979), Science in a Free Society. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (1984), “The Natural Ontological Attitude.” In Leplin, J. (ed.), Scientific Realism. Berkeley: California, pp. 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, S. (1992), “Being There with Thomas Kuhn: A Parable for Postmodern Times.” History and Theory 31: 241–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, S. (1993), Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the End of Knowledge: The Coming of Science & Technology Studies. Madison: Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Gregory, F. (1992), “Theologians, Science, and Theories of Truth in Nineteenth Century Germany.” In Nye, M.J. et al. (eds.) The Invention of Physical Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilbron, J. (1986), The Dilemmas of an Upright Man: Max Planck as Spokesman for German Science. Berkeley: California.Google Scholar
Humphrey, G. (1951), Thinking. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. (1990), The Kaiser's Chemists. Chapel Hill: North Carolina.Google Scholar
Kockelmans, J. (Ed.) (1968), Philosophy of Science: The Historical Background. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. ([1962] 1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1977), The Essential Tension. Chicago: Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, R. (1993), “Histories of Science and Their Uses: A Reviewto 1913.” History of Science?,!: 1-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mach, E. ([1883] I960), The Science of Mechanics. LaSalle: Open Court.Google Scholar
Matthews, M. (1991). “Ernst Mach and Contemporary Science Education Reforms.” In Matthews, M. (ed.), History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching New York: Teacher's College, pp. 9–18.Google Scholar
Mueller, D., Ringer, F., Simon, B. (Eds.) (1987), The Rise of the Modern Educational System: Structural Change and Social Reproduction 1870-1920. Cambridge: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Proctor, R. (1991), Value-Free Science? Cambridge: Harvard.Google Scholar
Rouse, J. (1987), Knowledge and Power. Ithaca: Cornell.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. ([1925] 1974), The General Theory of Knowledge. Vienna: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Weinberg, S. (1993), Dreams of a Final Theory. New York: Pantheon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar