Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:02:47.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feyerabend, Brownian Motion, and the Hiddenness of Refuting Facts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Ronald Laymon
Ronald Laymon*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, I will develop a nontrivial interpretation of Feyerabend's concept of a hidden anomalous fact. Feyerabend's claim is that some anomalous facts will remain hidden in the absence of alternatives to the theories to be tested. The case of Brownian motion is given by Feyerabend to support this claim. The essential scientific difficulty in this case was the justification of correct and relevant descriptions of Brownian motion. These descriptions could not be simply determined from the available observational data. An examination, however, of this case shows that no alternative theory is or historically was thought to be necessary in order to justify descriptions of Brownian motion that “directly” refute thermodynamics. While Feyerabend's appraisal of this case therefore is incorrect, a sense is developed in which successful alternatives lend inductive support to the correctness of refuting experimental descriptions. Crucial though to the explanation of this support is the notion of arguments that show the possibilities for improving experimental fit.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , June 1977 , pp. 225 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 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.)

References

REFERENCES

Brown, R. “A Brief Account of Microscopic Observations.” In The Miscellaneous Botanical Works. Vol. I. Edited by Bennett, J. J. London: Robert Hardwicke, 1866. Pages 465–478.Google Scholar
Brown, R. “Additional Remarks on Active Molecules.” In The Miscellaneous Botanical Works, Vol. I, pages 479–486.Google Scholar
Brush, S. “Foundations of Statistical Mechanics 1845–1915.” Archive for the History of the Exact Sciences 4 (1967): 145–183.10.1007/BF00412958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brush, S. “A History of Random Processes: I. Brownian Movement from Brown to Perrin.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 5 (1968): 1–36.10.1007/BF00328110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudesaigues, M. “Le mouvement brownien et la formule d'Einstein.” Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences, Paris 147 (1908): 1044–1046.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. “Ueber die von der molekular-kinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen.” Annalen der Physik 17 (1905): 549–560. Translation in Einstein Investigations on the Theory of the Brownian Motion. Translation by A. D. Cowper. With notes by R. Fürth. London: Methuen, 1926, Reprint ed., New York: Dover, 1956.10.1002/andp.19053220806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fermi, E. Thermodynamics. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1937. Reprint edition New York: Dover, 1956.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism.” In Scientific Explanation. Space and Time. Edited by Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1962. Pages 28–97.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. “Problems of Empiricism.” In Beyond the Edge of Certainty. Edited by Colodny, R. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1965. Pages 145–260.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. “Reply to Criticism.” In Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. II. Edited by Cohen, R. and Wartofsky, M. New York: Humanities Press, 1965. Pages 223–261.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. “On the Possibility of a Perpetuum Mobile of the Second Kind.” In Mind, Matter and Method, Essays in Honor of Herbert Feigl. Edited by Feyerabend, P. and Maxwell, G. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1966. Pages 409–412.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. “Consolations for the Specialist.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Pages 197–230.10.1017/CBO9781139171434.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouy, L. “Note sur le mouvement brownien.” Journal de Physique 7 (1888): 561–564.Google Scholar
Henri, V. “Étude cinématographique des mouvements browniens.” Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences, Paris 146 (1908): 1024–1026.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. “Newton's Optical Papers.” In Isaac Newton's Papers and Letters. Edited by Cohen, I. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958. Pages 27–45.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. “Reflections on My Critics.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Pages 231–278.10.1017/CBO9781139171434.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Laymon, R. “The Michelson-Morley Experiment: Descriptive dependence on to-be-tested Theories.” In Motion and Time, Space and Matter. Edited by Machamer, P. and Turnbull, R. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1976. Pages 436–464.Google Scholar
Laymon, R. “Newton's Advertised Precision and his Refutation of the Received Laws of Refraction.” In Studies in Perception: Interrelations in the History and Philosophy of Science. Edited by Machamer, P. and Turnbull, R. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Laymon, R. “The Michelson-Morley and Kennedy-Thorndike Experiments and the Ad Hocness of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Hypothesis.” Submitted to Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. and Clarke, S. The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence. Edited by Alexander, H. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1956.Google Scholar
Lorentz, H. et al. “Conference on the Michelson-Morley Experiment.” The Astrophysical Journal 68 (1928): 341–402.Google Scholar
Newton, I. “Newton to Oldenburg (1671/2).” In The Correspondence of Isaac Newton. Vol. I. Edited by Turnbull, H. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Pages 92–107.10.1017/9781108699945.043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrin, M. Brownian Movement and Molecular Reality. Translated by Soddy, F. London: Taylor and Francis, 1910.Google Scholar
Poincaré, H. “The Principles of Mathematical Physics.” In Congress of Art and Science, Universal Exposition, St. Louis, 1904. Vol. I, Edited by Rogers, H. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1905. Pages 604–622.Google Scholar
Popper, K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper and Row, 1967.Google Scholar
Smoluchowski, M. “Zarys kinetycznej teorji ruchów Browna i roztoworów metnych.” Rozprawny i Sprawozdania z Posiedzén Wydzialu Matematyczno-Przyrodniczego Akademii Umiejetności 46 (1906): 257–282. Translated in Annalen der Physik 21 (1906): 756–780.Google Scholar
Svedberg, T. Studien zur Lehre von der Kolloiden Lösungen. Upsala: 1907.Google Scholar
Svedberg, T. Die Existenz der Moleküle. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, 1912.Google Scholar
Thomson, W. “On the Dynamical Theory of Heat.” In Mathematical and Physical Papers. Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1882. Pages 174–332.Google Scholar