Rudolf Carnap is principally renowned for stating with remarkable precision and rigor a rich variety of philosophical doctrines — doctrines which, thanks mainly to Carnap’s meticulous formulations, the philosophical world now holds to be clearly and fundamentally mistaken. Thus, it is Carnap who, in Meaning and Necessity (Carnap 1947), presents in detail the linguistic doctrine of logical truth and the semantic underpinnings of the analytic/synthetic distinction, providing thereby the grist for the mill of Quine’s highly influential and important attacks on precisely these doctrines. Again, it was Carnap who, more than any other, precisely delineated the program of inductive logic. This program is now, thanks largely to Goodman’s (1983) New Riddle of Induction, also considered hopeless. Carnap is now firmly associated with a bewildering variety of discredited views: reductionism and the unity of science; the verification criterion of meaning; logic as an uninterpreted calculus; Russellian logicism even in the face of Gödel’s devastating incompleteness results; etc.

Traditionally, the proponents of empiricism sought for the starting point of knowledge in sensations that happen to us when we open our sense organs to the world. They analyzed the functioning of human faculties of sensation and cognition and the way these faculties are activated so as to discover the origin of ideas. Thus, they insisted on the priority of particulars to universals in the body of synthetic knowledge, and granted empirical facts the authority of truth. For that reason, they are opposed to the rationalists, who maintained that the most important part of synthetic knowledge is derived solely from first principles or ideas, and that these principles or ideas are “innate”—that reason can ascertain their truth intuitively without the use of the senses.

Logical positivism belongs to the empiricist tradition. However, it distinguishes itself from its empiricist predecessors in a very important way, so that its proponents thought they could overcome the difficulties raised against the older empiricists.

The most influential critique of the Logical Positivists’ analysis of scientific observation was posed by Paul Feyerabend in his classic essay, “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism”. Feyerabend countered the later Positivist conception with his so-called ‘Pragmatic Theory of Observation’ which was founded on two ideas. The first is that observation reports are ‘theory-laden’, in the sense that they are always interpreted in the light of the best current theory and are subject to reinterpretation when one theory succeeds another. Feyerabend traced the development of this idea in the early writings of the Positivists, especially Rudolf Carnap, in the classic discussion of protocol sentences. In that context, Feyerabend finds that the theory-ladenness of observation leads inexorably to the second idea of the Pragmatic Theory, that what counts as an observation report does not depend on either its empirical content or its logical form, but on its causal or pragmatic features.

Both inside and outside philosophy of science, the past 25 years has seen a remarkable increase in the epistemic importance attached to the role of background beliefs and values of agents engaged in cognitive inquiry. Emphasis on the role of background commitments has been beneficial in bringing philosophy of science back into closer relation with the varied forms of science. But at present there cannot be said to be any clear consensus among philosophers on issues of the theoretical status of such commitments, or of their import upon conceptions of scientific meta-methodology.

The situation worsens when one considers widespread suspicion today among many historicists and sociologists of science of the viability of philosophy of science as a normative enterprise. This marks the ground between normative epistemology and its critics. But to understand the skeptical attitude towards normative theory, one must attend to the background assumptions about normative discourse imbedded in logical empiricism, and in particular to the state of logical empiricist metascience just prior to the revolution of sorts that occurred in the 1960’s.

How do we characterize theoretical disagreement and how does this translate into strategies for practicing scientists? I integrate Kuhn’s (1962) notions of paradigms and problem-fields with Hull’s (1982,1988) concept of populational variation and Shapere’s (1974) characterization of domains in interpreting the Ox-Phos Controversy in bioenergetics (1961-1977). The analysis highlights the differences between intraparadigm disagreement (based on proposed solutions to shared problems) and interparadigm disagreement (based on the problems themselves and views of relevant domain).

Kuhn (1959,1962) introduced the notion that a single, uniform paradigm guides ‘normal science’. He further suggested that scientific communities undergo gestalt-like changes in research focus, implying that all disagreement is based on ‘incommensurable’ paradigms. Philosophers and historians of science concerned largely with how consensus is established (see Laudan 1984; Laudan and Laudan 1989) have found this problematic as a universal model (e.g., Lakatos and Musgrave 1970; Laudan 1977).

One of the most controversial ideas in recent philosophy of science is the incommensurability of scientific theories. For Kuhn, the claim that two theories are incommensurable is the claim that there is no common language within which both theories could be fully expressed (Kuhn 1977, p. 301). In others words, two theories are incommensurable if and only if they are articulated in languages that are not mutually translatable or communicable without loss. This type of incommensurability, according to Kuhn, is the result of changes in worldview. The proponents of different paradigms practice their researches in different worlds (Kuhn 1970, p. 150). They may have different classifications of objects in the world due to their different cultures. For example, the astronomers who belonged to Ptolemy’s paradigm grouped the sun, moon, and Mars into the same set, while the astronomers who belonged to Copernicus’s paradigm classified them into three different categories.

Since the publication of Science and Values in which Laudan unveiled his “reticulated model of scientific change” (Laudan (1984)), he has published a series of articles emphasizing the naturalistic axiology inherent in this model. (Laudan (1986), (1987a), (1987b), (1989), and (forthcoming)). His epistemic naturalism makes the business of fixing rational beliefs about facts, theories, methodologies, and aims all together “cut from the same piece of empirical cloth.” Laudan’s position has numerous attractive qualities: It allows one to accept a great deal of the wisdom in historicism without caving in to relativism. It allows one to accept the seemingly inevitable annexation of the theory of knowledge by the sciences and yet still maintain a normative epistemology. Finally, it awakens philosophers of science’s dogmatic slumbers regarding the axiology of scientific inquiry, and stimulates historical research into the relation between practiced means and professed ends in the sciences.

[I]t would be absurd for us to hope that we can know more of any object than belongs to the possible experience of it or lay claim to the least knowledge of how anything not assumed to be an object of possible experience is determined according to the constitution that it has in itself.

* * *

It would be… a still greater absurdity if we conceded no things in themselves or declared our experience to be the only possible mode of knowing things….

[Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics]

A certain line of skepticism about normative epistemology has become more or less standard in contemporary philosophy of science. It runs like this.

Scientific method is a matter of choosing among theories on the basis of evidence.

But in “conceptual revolutions”, meaning, truth, and even what counts as observable can all be theory-relative.

Herbert Simon’s work on scientific discovery deserves serious attention by philosophers of science for several reasons. First, Simon was an early advocate of rational scientific discovery, contra Popper and logical empiricist philosophers of science (Simon 1966). This proposal spurred on investigation of scientific discovery in philosophy of science, as philosophers used and developed Simon’s notions of “problem solving” and “heuristics” in attempts to provide rational accounts of scientific discovery (See Nickles 1980a, Wimsatt 1980). Second, Simon promoted and developed many of the crucial techniques and methods used in cognitive science. One is the use of computers to model internal psychological processes, a technique central to his account of scientific discovery. Another is protocol analysis, the use of the verbal reports of experimental subjects in psychology to construct accounts of their psychological processes. Protocol analysis is given a detailed formulation by Simon (Simon and Ericsson 1984), and is modified for use in the study of scientific cognition in the paper on Krebs (Kulkarni and Simon 1988).

A recent set of experiments by Cairns et al. (1988) purport to show that some mutations in a strain of E. coli bacteria are directed in the sense that they are induced, somehow, in an environment that is suited for them. If this claim is true it would limit the validity of the neo-Darwinian assumption that evolution proceeds by “random variation and natural selection” which requires that there be no correlation between the genesis of a particular mutation and the fitness of the corresponding phenotype in the environment in which the mutation occurs. Instead, it would argue for the occurrence of some “neo-Lamarckian” processes in evolution in the sense that the genesis of some mutations would have a positive correlation with the fitness of the resultant phenotype in that environment. Thus, one of the most fundamental tenets of the neo-Darwinian interpretation of evolution would be brought into question.

Philosophers now treat the relationship between Classical Mendelian Genetics and molecular biology as a paradigm of nonreduction and this example is playing an increasingly prominent role in debates about the reducibility of theories ranging from macrosocial science to folk psychology. Patricia Churchland (1986), for example, draws an analogy between the alleged elimination of the “causal mainstay” of classical genetics and her view that today’s psychological theory will be eliminated by neuroscience. Patricia Kitcher takes an autonomous rather than eliminativist view of the reported nonreduction in genetics and reasons that psychology will retain a similar autonomy from lower level sciences (1980 and 1982). Although Churchland and Kitcher offer different interpretations of the apparent failure of molecular biology to reduce classical genetics, they agree that this failure will help illuminate theoretical relations between psychology and lower level sciences. The appearance of the Mendelian example along side the usual ones from physics and chemistry marks a turning point in philosophy of science.

Konrad Lorenz does not view behaviors as innate; he does not even regard differences among behaviors (of different species) as innate. Rather, he construes information (about the environment to which the behavior is adapted) as the innate component of (some) behavior. His noted deprivation experiments are intended to withhold environmental sources of that information from the organism: should the organism nevertheless exhibit behavior evidencing possession of such information, then that information must be innate. Lorenz interprets this conclusion to mean that the information is transmitted to the organism genetically, by way of a sort of blueprint in the genome.

Selection operates at many levels. Some of the most obvious cases are organismic, such as changes in coloration under the influence of predation (cf. Kettlewell 1973; also Endler 1986). It also operates at other levels. Meiotic drive involves selection for a gene, independently of its effect on the organism. At a higher level, there may also be selection for patterns of colony growth in social insects, again under the influence of predation (cf. Wilson 1971). The appropriate level of selection is a matter of the causal patterns exhibited, or the target of selection. It can also be understood as a question of the appropriate level at which to seek explanatory laws.

Robert Brandon (1982, 1990) first clearly distinguished the question of the level of selection from debates over the units of selection. In doing so, he argued that the phenotype is commonly the target of selection, whatever the unit of selection might be.

There is, at present, controversy surrounding the role of the mathematical models which typify the more theoretical portions of ecology and evolutionary biology. Within these sciences there has been controversy about the “testability” of these models, both in terms of the ability of the model to make precise enough claims about the world, and in terms of our ability to determine the values of theoretical parameters. There has been concern, particularly in ecology, about the lack of realism characteristic of most models as well. These are, for the most part, issues involving the nature of theoretical explanation. Much of the current debate about null hypothesis testing, the unfalsifiability of theory, and the role of theory is symptomatic, it would seem, of the fact that these sciences have not settled on what to expect from their most mathematical theories. If there is one emerging theme, it is the need, again especially in ecology, for pluralistic theoretical treatments - which suggests that they may have been expecting too much.

Cytogenetics was born of the confluence of two so-far independent fields: cytological studies and breeding studies, which merged through the identification of genes with chromosomes. In this paper I argue that genes were introduced as functional entities. Functional explanations are presented here as a subclass of inferences to the best explanation and I argue that abductive arguments do not offer conclusive proof for the existence of the entities postulated through them. However, functional explanations usually follow a scheme laid out by Fodor (1968): there is a first phase where hypothetical entities are postulated and individuated through their effects; there is a second phase where the physical structures responsible for these effects are sought. I analyze the development of both phases in the construction of the chromosome theory of Mendelian inheritance. I will argue that first-phase theories are important to set conditions of identification for the functions played by a certain structure in a given containing system.

Let us assume that some organisms, humans at least and the other higher animals, have internal states and behavioral states that represent things external to themselves. One of the questions that everyone would like answered about these states is: In virtue of what does such a representational state get the specific content that it has? An answer to this question that’s popular just now is: In virtue of its biological function. I believe there is a deep reason why such an answer can’t work. I shall present that reason in this paper.

First, we need to be clear about the notion of biological function that’s being appealed to here. In particular, we need to distinguish two fairly different ways of thinking about function. We could think of something’s function as what it contributes to the present functioning or output of some complex system of which it is a part. Roughly, this is Cummins’ view in (Cummins 1984).

Renormalization in Quantum Field Theory (QFT) has frequently been regarded, by philosophers as well as by scientists, as an exemplary case of bad methodological behavior. The feeling that renormalization was somehow an illegitimate way to extract results, an ad hoc maneuver without an independent rationale, was (and is) common among physicists and philosophers, who wonder, at the same time, about the unprecedented accuracy of the empirical results achieved by the illegitimate method. Teller (1989) has recently tried to dispel the air of illegitimacy around this technique. His lucid presentation, however, leaves one wondering why any sufficiently well-informed person could ever have thought of renormalization as an ad hoc move.

Part of the reason, I think, is that renormalization — or so the common view goes — came to the rescue of a sadly lingering theory, the pre-1947 Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). A theory with such a bad record of solved empirical and conceptual problems could simply not be correct.