Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:20:22.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Empiricism, Perception and Conceptual Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

C. A. Hooker
C. A. Hooker*
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent times it has become fashionable to emphasize the role of conceptual change in the (philosopher's) history of science. To judge from recent writers (Feyerabend 5-9, Kuhn 18), every significant theoretical change in science is first and foremost a revolution in scientific concepts—a conceptual revolution. According to this view, every level of experience is affected by each fundamental theoretical change: physical theory, experimental practice and even perceptual experience. The Aristotelian patrician who watched the sun sink beneath the horizon not only had different beliefs (theory) about the phenomenon but actually saw something different from the Newtonian gentleman who saw the horizon rise above his eye-sun line, and the Einsteinian professional who saw the sun's varying geometrical relations to the world light-geodesics on which successive temporal stages of his eye world-line lay. Moreover, such is the completeness of the conceptual-experiential shifts undergone in a fundamental scientific change that it is impossible to meaningfully discuss the one theory within the confines of the other or, indeed, to provide any systematic, cumulative comparison of successive theories.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , September 1973 , pp. 59 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1973

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

1. Butts, R. E. “Feyerabend and the Pragmatic Theory of Observation.” Phil.Sci., 33 (1966), 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Carnap, R. The Logical Structure of the World and Pseudoproblems inPhilosophy, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1967.Google Scholar
3. Carnap, R. “The Methodological Character of Theoretical Concepts.” (in) Feigl, H. and Scriven, M. (eds.) Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. I, University of Minnesota Press, Minn., 1956.Google Scholar
4. Feigl, H. “Some Major Issues and Developments in the Philosophy of Science of logical Empiricism,” (in) Feigl, H. and Scriven, M. (eds.) Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. I, University of Minnesota Press, Minn., 1956.Google Scholar
5. Feyerabend, P. K. “An Attempt at a Realistic Interpretation of Experience,“ Proc. Aristot. Soc., LVIII (1958).Google Scholar
6. Feyerabend, P. K. “Explanation, Reduction, Empiricism,” (in) Feigl, H. Scriven, M. and Maxwell, G. (eds.) Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. II, University of Minnesota Press, Minn., 1962.Google Scholar
7. Feyerabend, P. K. “Replies to Criticism,” (in) Cohen, R. S. and Wartofsky, M. W. (eds.) Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. II, N.Y. Humanities Press, 1965.Google Scholar
8. Feyerabend, P. K. “Problems of Empiricism,” (in) Colodny, R. (ed.), Beyond the Edge of Certainty, N.Y. Prentice-Hall, 1965.Google Scholar
9. Feyerabend, P. K. “On the Meaning of Scientific Terms,” journal of Philosophy, LX II (1965), 266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Held, R. “Plasticity in Sensory-Motor Systems,” Sc. Am., November, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Hempel, C. G. “The theoretician's Dilemma,” (in) Feigl, H. Scriven, M. and Maxwell, G. (eds.) Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. II, University of Minnesota Press, Minn., 1962.Google Scholar
12. Hempel, C. G. The Carus lectures. Delivered to the meeting of the Western Division of the American Philosophical Association, St. Louis, Missouri May 1970. To be published.Google Scholar
13. Henle, M. “An Experimental Investigation of Past Experiences as a Determinant of Visual Form Perception,” J. Exp. Psych., 30, 1942, pp. 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Hooker, C. A. “Critical Notice“: Paul K. Feyerabend: “Against Method.” A review of Feyerabend's essay in Radner, M. and Winokur, S. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. IV, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minn., 1970; this Journal, I (1971-2), pp. 489–509.Google Scholar
15. Hooker, C. A. The Secondary Qualities and Systematic Philosophy. Ph.D. thesis, 1970. To appear in book form.Google Scholar
16. Hooker, C. A. Systematic Realism, to be published.Google Scholar
17. Kohler, W. “Experiments with Goggles,” Sc. Am., May, 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Kuhn, T.. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1962.Google Scholar
19. Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Sellars, W. Science, Perception and Reality, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1963. (Especially essays 1, 4, 5).Google Scholar
21. Snyder, P. W. and Sendon, N. H. “Vision with Spatial Inversion,” Wichita, Kansas, University of Wichita Press, 1952.Google Scholar
22. Wittreich, W. J. “Visual Perception and Personality,” Sc. Am., April, 1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar