Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T22:33:23.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental Philosophy of Science and Philosophical Differences across the Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Brian Robinson ,
Chad Gonnerman  and
Michael O’Rourke
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article contributes to the underdeveloped field of experimental philosophy of science. We examine variability in the philosophical views of scientists. Using data from Toolbox Dialogue Initiative, we analyze scientists’ responses to prompts on philosophical issues (methodology, confirmation, values, reality, reductionism, and motivation for scientific research) to assess variance in the philosophical views of physical scientists, life scientists, and social and behavioral scientists. We find six prompts about which differences arose, with several more that look promising for future research. We then evaluate the difference between the natural and social sciences and the challenge of interdisciplinary integration across scientific branches.

Type
Articles
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 86 , Issue 3 , July 2019 , pp. 551 - 576
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

*

To contact the authors, please write to: Brian Robinson, Texas A&M University–Kingsville, Department of History, Political Science, and Philosophy, 700 University Blvd., MSC 165, Kingsville, TX 78363; e-mail: [email protected]. Chad Gonnerman, University of Southern Indiana, Department of Philosophy, 8600 University Blvd., Evansville, IN 47712. Michael O’Rourke, Michigan State University, Department of Philosophy, 368 Farm Lane, Room 503, East Lansing, MI 48824.

†

We would like to thank Stephen Crowley and Daniel Steel for discussion of the issues addressed in this article, as well as audiences at the 2015 Buffalo Experimental Philosophy Conference, the 2015 Science of Team Science Conference, and the 2016 SRPoiSE/Values in Medicine, Science and Technology Conference. The work reported in this article was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant SES-0823058. O’Rourke’s work on this project was supported by the US Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project MICL02261.

References

Barthel, Roland, and Seidl, Roman. 2017. “Interdisciplinary Collaboration between Natural and Social Sciences: Status and Trends Exemplified in Groundwater Research.” PLOS ONE 12 (1): 1–27..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bechtel, William. 1993. “Integrating Sciences by Creating New Disciplines: The Case of Cell Biology.” Biology and Philosophy 8 (3): 277–99..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bepress. 2014. “Disciplines: Introduction to Digital Commons Three-Tiered Taxonomy of Academic Disciplines.” Digital Commons. http://digitalcommons.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=reference.Google Scholar
Bermúdez, José Luis. 2010. Cognitive Science: An Introduction to the Science of the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, Alexander. 2008. “The Historical Turn in Philosophy of Science.” In Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Science, ed. Psillos, Stathis and Curd, Martin, 67–77. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bracken, L. J., and Oughton, E. A.. 2006. “‘What Do You Mean?’ The Importance of Language in Developing Interdisciplinary Research.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31 (3): 371–82..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo. 2010. “Beyond Reduction and Pluralism: Toward an Epistemology of Explanatory Integration in Biology.” Erkenntnis 73 (3): 295–311..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo. 2013. “Integration in Biology: Philosophical Perspectives on the Dynamics of Interdisciplinarity.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (4), pt. A: 461–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carruthers, Peter, Stich, Stephen, and Siegal, Michael, eds. 2002. The Cognitive Basis of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowley, Stephen J., Gonnerman, Chad, and O’Rourke, Michael. 2016. “Cross-Disciplinary Research as a Platform for Philosophical Research.” Journal of the American Philosophical Association 2 (2): 344–63..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, Lindley, and Maull, Nancy. 1977. “Interfield Theories.” Philosophy of Science 44 (1): 43–64..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, Shannon M., O’Rourke, Michael, and Looney, Chris. 2015. “Your Hypothesis or Mine? Terminological and Conceptual Variation across Disciplines.” SAGE Open 5 (2): 2158244015586237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2009. Science and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eigenbrode, Sanford D., O’Rourke, Michael, Wulfhurst, J. D., Althoff, David M., Goldberg, Caren S., Merrill, Kaylani, Morse, Wayde, et al. 2007. “Employing Philosophical Dialogue in Collaborative Science.” BioScience 57 (1): 55–64..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faust, David, and Meehl, Paul E.. 2002. “Using Meta-scientific Studies to Clarify or Resolve Questions in the Philosophy and History of Science.” Philosophy of Science 69:S185–S196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feist, Gregory J. 2006. The Psychology of Science and the Origins of the Scientific Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Feist, Gregory J., and Gorman, Michael E., eds. 2013. Handbook of the Psychology of Science. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Gerson, Elihu M. 2013. “Integration of Specialties: An Institutional and Organizational View.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (4), pt. A: 515–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grandis, Giovanni De, and Efstathiou, Sophia. 2016. “Introduction: Grand Challenges and Small Steps.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science C 56:39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grantham, Todd A. 2004. “Conceptualizing the (Dis)Unity of Science.” Philosophy of Science 71 (2): 133–55..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesemer, James. 2013. “Integration of Approaches in David Wake’s Model-Taxon Research Platform for Evolutionary Morphology.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (4), pt. A: 525–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, Paul, Machery, Edouard, and Linquist, Stefan. 2009. “The Vernacular Concept of Innateness.” Mind and Language 24 (5): 605–30..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, Paul, and Stotz, Karola. 2008. “Experimental Philosophy of Science.” Philosophy Compass 3 (3): 507–21..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grover, S. C. 1981. Toward a Psychology of the Scientist: Implications of Psychology for Contemporary Philosophy of Science. Washington, DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Grune-Yanoff, Till. 2016. “Interdisciplinary Success without Integration.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 6 (3): 343–60..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1996. “The Disunities of the Sciences.” In The Disunity of Science, ed. Galison, P. and Stump, D.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hartner, Daniel F. 2013. “Conceptual Analysis as Armchair Psychology: In Defense of Methodological Naturalism.” Philosophical Studies 165 (3): 921–37..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, J. Britt. 2013. “What Is Interdisciplinary Communication? Reflections on the Very Idea of Disciplinary Integration.” Synthese 190 (11): 1865–79..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, Sture. 1979. “A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure.” Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 6 (2): 65–70..Google Scholar
Houts, Arthur C. 1989. “Contributions of the Psychology of Science to Metascience: A Call for Explorers.” In Psychology of Science: Contributions to Metascience, 47–88. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Julie Thompson. 2012. Case Studies in Interdisciplinary Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Knobe, Joshua, Buckwalter, Wesley, Nichols, Shaun, Robbins, Philip, Sarkissian, Hagop, and Sommers, Tamler. 2012. “Experimental Philosophy.” Annual Review of Psychology 63 (1): 81–99..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knobe, Joshua, and Samuels, Richard. 2013. “Thinking like a Scientist: Innateness as a Case Study.” Cognition 126 (1): 72–86..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lélé, Sharachchandra, and Norgaard, Richard B.. 2005. “Practicing Interdisciplinarity.” BioScience 55 (11): 967–75..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonelli, Sabina. 2013. “Integrating Data to Acquire New Knowledge: Three Modes of Integration in Plant Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (4): 503–14..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linquist, Stefan, Machery, Edouard, Griffiths, Paul E., and Stotz, Karola. 2011. “Exploring the Folkbiological Conception of Human Nature.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 366 (1563): 444–53..Google ScholarPubMed
Looney, Chris, Donovan, Shannon, O’Rourke, Michael, Crowley, Stephen, Eigenbrode, Sanford, Rotschy, Liela, Bosque-Pérez, Nilsa, and Wulfhorst, J. D.. 2013. “Seeing through the Eyes of Collaborators: Using Toolbox Workshops to Enhance Cross-Disciplinary Communication.” In Enhancing Communication and Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research, ed. O’Rourke, Michael, Eigenbrode, Sanford, and Wulfhorst, J. D.. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Love, Alan C. 2008. “Explaining Evolutionary Innovations and Novelties: Criteria of Explanatory Adequacy and Epistemological Prerequisites.” Philosophy of Science 75 (5): 874–86..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, Edouard. 2016. “Experimental Philosophy of Science.” In A Companion to Experimental Philosophy, ed. Sytsma, Justin and Buckwalter, Wesley, 475–90. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Machery, Edouard. 2017. Philosophy within Its Proper Bounds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, Edouard, and Cohen, Kara. 2012. “An Evidence-Based Study of the Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (1): 177–226..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäki, Uskali. 2016. “Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity: What? Why? How?” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 6 (3): 327–42..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez, María Laura. 2009. “Ian Hacking’s Proposal for the Distinction between Natural and Social Sciences.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 39 (2): 212–34..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra D., Daston, Lorraine, Gigerenzer, Gerd, Sesardic, Neven, and Sloep, Peter B.. 1997. “The Whys and Hows of Interdisciplinarity.” In Human by Nature: Between Biology and the Social Sciences, ed. Weingart, Peter, Mitchell, Sandra D., Richerson, Peter J., and Maasen, Sabine, 103–50. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nagatsu, Michiru. 2013. “Experimental Philosophy of Economics.” Economics and Philosophy 29 (2): 263–76..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Ernst. 1961. The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okabe, Masataka, and Ito, Kei. 2002. “Color Universal Design (CUD): How to Make Figures and Presentations That Are Friendly to Colorblind People.” Jfly. http://jfly.iam.u-tokyo.ac.jp/color/.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, Michael. 2017. “Comparing Methods for Cross-Disciplinary Research.” In Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, ed. Frodeman, Robert, Klein, Julie Thompson, and Carlos Dos Santos Pacheco, Roberto, 2nd ed., 276–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, Michael, and Crowley, Stephen J.. 2013. “Philosophical Intervention and Cross-Disciplinary Science: The Story of the Toolbox Project.” Synthese 190 (11): 1937–54..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Rourke, Michael, Crowley, Stephen J., and Gonnerman, Chad. 2016. “On the Nature of Cross-Disciplinary Integration: A Philosophical Framework.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science C 56:62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papineau, David. 2009. “Naturalism.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Proctor, Robert W., and Capaldi, E. J., eds. 2012. Psychology of Science: Implicit and Explicit Processes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiners, Derek S., Reiners, W. A., and Lockwood, Jeffrey A.. 2013. “The Relationship between Environmental Advocacy, Values, and Science: A Survey of Ecological Scientists’ Attitudes.” Ecological Applications 23 (5): 1226–42..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reiss, Julian, and Sprenger, Jan. 2016. “Scientific Objectivity.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Rylance, Rick. 2015. “Grant Giving: Global Funders to Focus on Interdisciplinarity.” Nature 525 (7569): 313–15..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steel, Daniel, Gonnerman, Chad, and O’Rourke, Michael. 2017. “Scientists’ Attitudes on Science and Values: Case Studies and Survey Methods in Philosophy of Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 63:22–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stotz, Karola. 2009a. “Experimental Philosophy of Biology: Notes from the Field.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 40 (2): 233–37..Google Scholar
Stotz, Karola. 2009b. “Philosophy in the Trenches: From Naturalized to Experimental Philosophy (of Science).” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 40 (2): 225–26..Google Scholar
Stotz, Karola, Griffiths, Paul E., and Knight, Rob. 2004. “How Biologists Conceptualize Genes: An Empirical Study.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science C 35 (4): 647–73..Google Scholar
Sytsma, Justin, and Livengood, Jonathan. 2015. The Theory and Practice of Experimental Philosophy. Peterborough: Broadview.Google Scholar
Thagard, Paul. 1988. Computational Philosophy of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuana, Nancy, Sriver, Ryan L., Svoboda, Toby, Olson, Roman, Irvine, Peter J., Haqq-Misra, Jacob, and Keller, Klaus. 2012. “Towards Integrated Ethical and Scientific Analysis of Geoengineering: A Research Agenda.” Ethics, Policy and Environment 15 (2): 136–57..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagenknecht, Susann, Nersessian, Nancy J., and Andersen, Hanne, eds. 2015. Empirical Philosophy of Science: Introducing Qualitative Methods into Philosophy of Science. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, Jonathan M., and Crowley, Stephen. 2009. “The X-Phi(Les): Unusual Insights into the Nature of Inquiry.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 40 (2): 227–32..Google Scholar