Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T23:27:39.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scientific Inference and the Pursuit of Fame: A Contractarian Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Jesús P. Zamora Bonilla
Jesús P. Zamora Bonilla*
Affiliation:
UNED, and Fundación Urrutia Elejalde. Spain
*
Send requests for reprints to the author; Depto. Lógica y Filosofía de la Ciencia, UNED, 28071 Madrid, Spain; [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Methodological norms are seen as rules defining a competitive game, and it is argued that rational recognition-seeking scientists can reach a collective agreement about which specific norms serve better their individual interests, especially if the choice is made ‘under a veil of ignorance’, i.e., before knowing what theory will be proposed by each scientist. Norms for theory assessment are distinguished from norms for theory choice (or inference rules), and it is argued that pursuit of recognition only affects this second type of rule. An inference rule similar to ‘eliminative induction’ is defended on the basis of such a possible agreement. According to this contractarian approach, both the explanation and the justification of scientific norms only need to refer to the preferences of individual scientists, without assuming the existence of ‘collective’ points of view.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 69 , Issue 2 , June 2002 , pp. 300 - 323
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

‡

Financial support for this reseach was received from Fundación Urrutia Elejalde, from The Spanish Government's DGICYT research project PB98–0495-C08–01, and from the Department of Economics of the Universidad Carlos III. Previous versions of this paper were presented in the Seminar of Economic Methodology of Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (November 1999), and in the Seminar ‘Theoretization and Experimentation in Economics’ (Rovaniemi, Finland, December 1999); my thanks to Juan Carlos García-Bermejo, Uskali Mäki and Timo Tammi for inviting me to take part in them. Hepful comments were made by Francisco Álvarez, José Ramón Álvarez-Rendueles, Salvador Barberá, Miguel Beltrán, José Luis Ferreira, Shaun Hargreaves Heap, Frank Hindriks, Javier Ruiz-Castillo, David Teira, and especially Juan Urrutia and two anonymous referees.

References

Axelrod, Robert (1997), The Complexity of Cooperation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brennan, Geoffrey, and Buchanan, James M. (1985), The Reason of Rules. Constitutional Political Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brock, William A., and Durlauf, Stephen N. (1999), “A Formal Model of Theory Choice in Science”, A Formal Model of Theory Choice in Science 14:113–30.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M. (1991), The Economics and the Ethics of Constitutional Order. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon (1989), The Cement of Society: A Study of Social Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Alvin I. (1999), Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0198238207.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Alvin I., and Shaked, M. (1991), “An Economic Model of Scientific Activity and Truth Acquisition”, An Economic Model of Scientific Activity and Truth Acquisition 63:31–55.Google Scholar
Hands, D. Wade (1997), “Caveat Emptor: Economics and contemporary philosophy of science”, Philosophy of Science 64 (Proceedings): S107–S118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. (1973), Law, Legislation and Liberty. Vol. I: Rules and Order. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Hull, David (1988), Science as a Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226360492.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1993), The Advancement of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, Karen (1981), The Manufacture of Knowledge. An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre (1977), “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes”, in Worrall, John and Currie, Greg (eds.), The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambdridge: Cambridge University Press, 8–101.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno (1987), Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno, and Woolgar, Steve (1979), Laboratory Life. The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry (1977), Progress and Its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Rawls, John (1971), A Theory of Justice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sent, Esther-Miriam (1999), “The Economics of Science: Survey and Suggestions”, The Economics of Science: Survey and Suggestions 6:95–124.Google Scholar
Stephan, Paula E. (1996), “The Economics of Science”, The Economics of Science 34:1199–1235.Google Scholar
Sugden, Robert (1989), “Spontaneous Order”, Spontaneous Order 3:85–97.Google Scholar
Vanberg, Viktor J. (1994), Rules and Choice in Economics. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203422588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamora Bonilla, Jesús P. (1999), “The Elementary Economics of Scientific Consensus”, The Elementary Economics of Scientific Consensus 14:461–88.Google Scholar
Bonilla, Zamora (2000), “Truthlikeness, Rationality and Scientific Method”, Truthlikeness, Rationality and Scientific Method 122:321–35.Google Scholar
Bonilla, Zamora, forthcoming a, “Verisimilitude and the Dynamics of Scientific Research Programmes”, Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie.Google Scholar
Bonilla, Zamora, forthcoming b, “Economists: Truth-Seekers or Rent-Seekers?”, in Mäki, Uskali (ed.), Fact and Fiction: Foundational Issues on Economics and the Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar