Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T22:54:31.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selectivity and Theory Choice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Mattl Sintonen
Mattl Sintonen*
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki and the Academy of Finland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his 1982 Presidential Address to the PSA Ernan McMullin proposed that the Kuhnian “revolution” in the philosophy of science amounts, in part, to the growing awareness that theory-appraisal is to be modelled on decisions and value judgments rather than rule-governed inferences (McMullin 1983). This viewpoint has its attractions but needs developing before it can satisfy skeptics, such as Larry Laudan. For Laudan complains that Kuhn has provided no general model to back up his value-geared account, and that the view leads to untenable subjectivism which Kuhn has tried to avoid.

I shall try to show that neither complaint stands to criticism, by joining two ideas. The first – that of modelling theory decisions along decision theory – is not a novel one, but even its supporters have failed to see that it makes Kuhn’s subjectivity a live but respectable possibility.

Type
Part VI. General Philosophy of Science (B)
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1986 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1986 , 1986 , pp. 364 - 373
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1986

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

Harsanyi, John. (1955). “Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility.” Journal of Political Economy 63: 309–321. (As reprinted in J. Harsanyi, Essays on Ethics. Social Behavior, and Scientific Explanation. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Pages 6-23.)Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. (1970). “Reflections on My Critics.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pages 231-278.Google Scholar
Kruger, Lorenz (1980). “Intertheoretic Relations as a Tool for the Rational Reconstruction of Scientific Development.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 11: 89–101.Google Scholar
Kruger, Lorenz (1976). “Theory-Change as Structure-Change: Comments on the Sneed Formalism.” Erkenntnis 10: 179–199.Google Scholar
Kruger, Lorenz (1977).“Objectivity, Value, Judgment, and Theory Choice.” In The Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pages 320-339.Google Scholar
Kruger, Lorenz. (1983). “Commensurability, Comparability, and Communicability.” In PSA 1982. Vol. 2. Edited by P.D. Asquith and T. Nickles. East Lansing, Michigan: The Philosophy of Science Association. Pages 669-688.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry. (1984). Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Levi, Isaac. (1967). Gambling with Truth. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Levi, Isaac. (1980). The Enterprise of Knowledge: An Essay on Knowledge. Credal Probability, and Change. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan (1983).“Values in Science.” In PSA 1982. Vol. 2. Edited by P.D. Asquith and T. Nickles. East Lansing, Michigan: The Philosophy of Science Association. Pages 3-28.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, Ilkka (1980). “The Growth of Theories: Comments on the Structuralist Approach.” In Proceedings, of the Second International Congress for History and Philosophy of Science, Pisa , 1978. Dordrecht-Holland: D. Reidel. Pages 3-47.Google Scholar
Pearce, David and Rantala, Veikko. (1983).“Constructing General Models of Theory Dynamics.” Studia Logica XLII: 347–362.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard Van Orman (1960). Word and Object. New York: Technology Press and John Wiley.Google Scholar
Rantala, Veikko. (1980).“On the Logical Basis of the Structuralist Philosophy of Science”. Erkenntnis 15: 269–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sintonen, Matti. (1983). “A New Look at Consilience.” In Abstracts of the 7th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Vol. 3. Edited by R. Stranzinger. Salzburg: J. Huttegger. Pages 235–238.Google Scholar
Sneed, Joseph. (1976). “Philosophical Problems in the Empirical Science of Science: A Formal Approach.” Erkenntnis 10: 115–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliot. (1975). Simplicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegmüller, Wolfgang (1979). The Structuralist View of Theories. A Possible Analogue of the Bourbaki Programme in Physical Science. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar