Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:59:48.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dominance and the Disunity of Method: Solving the Problems of Innovation and Consensus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Rachel Laudan  and
Larry Laudan
Rachel Laudan
Affiliation:
Departments of General Science and Philosophy University of Hawaii
Larry Laudan
Affiliation:
Departments of General Science and Philosophy University of Hawaii
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is widely supposed that the scientists in any field use identical standards for evaluating theories. Without such unity of standards, consensus about scientific theories is supposedly unintelligible. However, the hypothesis of uniform standards can explain neither scientific disagreement nor scientific innovation. This paper seeks to show how the presumption of divergent standards (when linked to a hypothesis of dominance) can explain agreement, disagreement and innovation. By way of illustrating how a rational community with divergent standards can encourage innovation and eventually reach consensus, recent developments in geophysics are discussed at some length.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , June 1989 , pp. 221 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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

†

We are grateful to Richard Nunan and Naomi Oreskes for their comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

REFERENCES

Blackett, P. M. S.; Bullard, E.; and Runcorn, S. K. (1965), “A Symposium on Continental Drift”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 258: 1–321.Google Scholar
Carozzi, A. (1985), “The Reaction in Continental Europe to Wegener's Theory of Continental Drift”, Earth Sciences History 4: 122–137.Google Scholar
Cox, A. (ed.) (1973), Plate Tectonics and Geomagnetic Reversals. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Cox, A., and Doell, R. (1960), “Review of Paleomagnetism”, Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 71: 645–768.10.1130/0016-7606(1960)71[645:ROP]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankel, H. (1979), “The Career of Continental Drift Theory”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 10: 21–66.10.1016/0039-3681(79)90003-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankel, H. (1982), “The Development, Reception, and Acceptance of the Vine-Matthews-Morley Hypothesis”, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 13: 1–39.10.2307/27757504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. (1985), “Philosophy of Science Naturalized”, Philosophy of Science 52: 331–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. (1988), Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glen, W. (1982), The Road to Jaramillo: Critical Years in the Revolution in Earth Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hallam, A. (1971), A Revolution in the Earth Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hallam, A. (1983), Great Geological Controversies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heirtzler, J. R.; Le Pichon, X.; and Baron, J. G. (1966), “Magnetic Anomalies Over the Reykjanes Ridge”, Deep-Sea Research 13: 427–443.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1977), The Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226217239.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1983), Philosophical Papers, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1981), Science and Hypothesis. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1984), Science and Values. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1985), “Kuhn's Critique of Methodology”, in J. Pitt (ed.), Change and Progress in Modern Science. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 283–300.10.1007/978-94-009-6525-6_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, R. (1980a), “The Recent Revolution in Geology and Kuhn's Theory of Scientific Change”, in G. Gutting (ed.), Paradigms and Revolutions: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Kuhn. South Bend: Notre Dame University Press, pp. 284–296.Google Scholar
Laudan, R. (1980b), “The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses and the Discovery of Plate Tectonic Theory in Geology”, in T. Nickles (ed.), Scientific Discovery: Case Studies. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 331–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, R. (1987), “Drifting Interests and Colliding Continents: A Response to Stewart”, Social Studies of Science 17: 317–321.10.1177/030631287017002005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeGrand, H. (1986), “Specialties, Problems and Localism—The Reception of Continental Drift in Australia 1920–1940”, Earth Sciences History 5: 84–95.Google Scholar
Marvin, U. (1973), Continental Drift: The Evolution of a Concept. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. (1939), Principles of the Theory of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1951), The Logic of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Runcorn, S. K. (ed.) (1962), Continental Drift. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, J. (1986), “Drifting Continents and Colliding Interests: Quantitative Application of the Interests Perspective”, Social Studies of Science 16: 261–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uyeda, S. (1978), The New View of the Earth: Moving Continents and Moving Oceans. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Vening Meinesz, A. (1964), The Earth's Crust and Mantle. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. (1954), “The Development and Structure of the Crust”, in G. Kuiper (ed.), The Earth as a Planet. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 138–214.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. (1965), “A New Class of Faults and Their Bearing on Continental Drift”, Nature 207: 343–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. (1970), Continents Adrift. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. (1972), Continents Adrift and Continents Aground. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar