Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T11:08:28.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scientists’ Responses to Anomalous Data: Evidence from Psychology, History, and Philosophy of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

William F. Brewer  and
Clark A. Chinn
William F. Brewer
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Clark A. Chinn
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this paper is to provide a systematic account of the role of anomaly in theory change in science. We adopt a naturalist approach to the philosophy of science (e.g., Giere 1985; Maffie 1990) and support our proposal with evidence from the history of science and from the psychology of science.

Previous discussions of the topic of anomaly in theory change have rarely used evidence from psychology. Probably this has been due to the relatively immature state of research in the psychology of science (cf. Gorman forthcoming; Gholson, Shadish, Neimeyer, and Houts 1989). However there is now enough research on the topic of belief change (cf. Chinn and Brewer 1993b) to provide a foundation for theory development in the area of responses to anomaly. Much of the research in this area uses data from undergraduates and children and not scientists (see Dunbar forthcoming, for an exception).

Type
Part VIII. Historical Case Studies and Methodology
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1994 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1994 , 1994 , pp. 304 - 313
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.)

Footnotes

1

We would like to thank Robert McCauley and Paul Thagard for comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

Alvarez, L.W., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F. and Michel, H.V. (1980), “Extraterrestrial Cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction”, Science 208:1095–1108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Badash, L. (1966), “How the ‘Newer Alchemy’ Was Received”, Scientific American (August) 215 (2): 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, W.F. and Chinn, C.A. (1991), “Entrenched Beliefs, Inconsistent Information, and Knowledge Change”, Proceedings of the 1991 International Conference on the Learning Sciences, Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, pp. 67–73.Google Scholar
Brewer, W.F. and Lambert, B.L. (1993), “The Theory-Ladenness of Observation: Evidence from Cognitive Psychology”, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, University of Colorado-Boulder, Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 254-259.Google Scholar
Brewer, W.F. and Samarapungavan, A. (1991), “Children's Theories vs. Scientific Theories: Differences in Reasoning or Differences in Knowledge?” in Hoffman, R. R. and Palermo, D.S. (eds.), Cognition and the Symbolic Processes: Applied and Ecological Perspectives. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 209–232.Google Scholar
Burbules, N.C. and Linn, M.C. (1988), “Response to Contradiction: Scientific Reasoning During Adolescence”, Journal of Educational Psychology 80: 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chinn, C.A. and Brewer, W.F. (1992), “Psychological Responses to Anomalous Data”, Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Indiana University, Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 165-170.Google Scholar
Chinn, C.A. and Brewer, W.F. (1993a), “Factors that Influence How People Respond to Anomalous Data”, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, University of Colorado-Boulder, Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 318-323.Google Scholar
Chinn, C.A. and Brewer, W.F. (1993b), “The Role of Anomalous Data in Knowledge Acquisition: A Theoretical Framework and Implications for Science Instruction”, Review of Educational Research 63: 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chinn, C.A. and Brewer, W.F. (1994), “The Role of Anomalous Data in Belief Change”, Unpublished manuscript. Champaign, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Conant, J.F. (1951), Science and Common Sense. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dunbar, K. (forthcoming), “In Vivo Cognition: Knowledge Representation and Change in Real-World Scientific Laboratories”, in Sternberg, R. J. and Davidson, J. (eds.), Insight, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Drake, S. (1980), Galileo. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
Fermi, L. and Bernardini, G. (1961), Galileo and the Scientific Revolution. Greenwich: Premier Books.Google Scholar
Gholson, B., Shadish, W.R. Jr.,, Neimeyer, R.A. and Houts, A.C. (eds.) (1989), Psychology of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R.N. (1985), “Philosophy of Science Naturalized”, Philosophy of Science 52: 331–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasser, O. (1934), Wilhelm Conrad Rontgen and the Early History of the Roentgen Rays. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorman, M.E. (forthcoming), “Psychology of Science”, in O'Donohue, W. and Kitchener, P. (eds.), Psychology and Philosophy: Interdisciplinary Problems and Responses. Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Hanson, N.R. (1958), Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hewish, A. (1968), “Pulsars”, Scientific American (October) 219 (4): 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewish, A. (1975), “Pulsars and High Density Physics”, Science 188: 1079–1083.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holton, G. (1978), “Subelectrons, Presuppositions, and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft Dispute”, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 9:161–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. and Inhelder, B. (1975), “‘If You Want to Get Ahead, Get a Theory’”, Cognition 3: 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T.S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970), “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes”, in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maffie, J. (1990), “Recent Work on Naturalized Epistemology”, American Philosophical Quarterly 27: 281–293.Google Scholar
Mpemba, E.B. and Osbome, D.G. (1969), “Cool?”, Physics Education 4: 172–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musgrave, A. (1976), “Why Did Oxygen Supplant Phlogiston? Research Programmes in the Chemical Revolution”, in Howson, C. (ed.), Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences: The Critical Background to Modern Science, 1800-1905. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 181–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, D.G. (1979), “Mind on Ice”, Physics Education 14: 414–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D.M. (1986), The Nemesis Affair: A Story of the Death of Dinosaurs and the Ways of Science. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Rowell, J.A. and Dawson, C.J. (1983), “Laboratory Counterexamples and the Growth of Understanding in Science”, European Journal of Science Education 5: 203–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, P. (1992), Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vosniadou, S. and Brewer, W.F. (1992), “Mental Models of the Earth: A Study of Conceptual Change in Childhood”, Cognitive Psychology 24: 535–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar