Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:07:15.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foregrounding the Background

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Helen Longino
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Practice-centric and theory-centric approaches in philosophy of science are described and contrasted. The contrast is developed through an examination of their different treatments of the underdetermination problem. The practice-centric approach is illustrated by a summary of comparative research on approaches in the biology of behavior. The practice-centric approach is defended against charges that it encourages skepticism regarding the sciences.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 83 , Issue 5 , December 2016 , pp. 647 - 661
Copyright
Copyright © 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

†

A heartfelt thank-you to Jessica Pfeifer for her energetic and effective activities as executive director of the PSA, to Chris Smeenk for organizing an excellent program, and to the members of the PSA Governing Board for their commitment to our profession and our organization. I am also grateful to the Brown Foundation for a residency at the Dora Maar House, during which I prepared a draft of this address.

References

Bandelj, Nina, Elyachar, Julia, Richardson, Gary, and Weatherall, James Owen. 2016. “Comprehending and Regulating Financial Crises: An Interdisciplinary Approach.” Perspectives on Science 24 (4): 443–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, Chris, Laird, Jennifer, Ifill, Nicole, and KewalRamani, Angelina. 2011. Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 1972–2009 (NCES 2012-006). US Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.Google Scholar
Coulson, Andrew. 2013. “New NAEP Scores Extend Dismal Trend in U.S. Educational Productivity.” Cato at Liberty, June 28. http://www.cato.org/blog/new-naep-scores-extend-dismal-trend-us-education-productivity.Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre. 1954. Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Trans. Wiener, Philip. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, Elisabeth A. 2012. “The Role of ‘Complex’ Empiricism in the Debates about Satellite Data and Climate Models.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43 (2): 390–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 2013. Studying Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi, and Conway, Erik. 2010. Merchants of Doubt. New York: Bloomsbury.Google ScholarPubMed
Parker, Wendy. 2011. “When Climate Models Agree: The Significance of Robust Model Predictions.” Philosophy of Science 78 (4): 579–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” In From a Logical Point of View, 2nd ed., 20–46. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stanford, Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiglitz, Joseph. 2008. “The Opposition’s Closing Statement.” Economist, October 22. http://www.economist.com/node/12411048?zid=295&ah=0bca374e65f2354d553956ea65f756e0.Google Scholar
Tricks, Henry. 2008. “The Moderator’s Opening Statement, Economist Debate Series: The Financial Crisis.” Economist, October 16. http://www.economist.com/node/12411051?zid=295&ah=0bca374e65f2354d553956ea65f756e0.Google Scholar
Winsberg, Eric. 2012. “Values and Uncertainties in the Predictions of Global Climate Models.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 22 (2): 111–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed