Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:44:39.060Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Against Correspondence: A Constructivist View of Experiment and the Real

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Andy Pickering
Andy Pickering*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper is about realism. The ideas presented were developed as part of a response to a persistent criticism levelled against the relativist/constructivist programme in the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK), namely that this programme fails to allow the real any role in the articulation of scientific thought. This criticism I believe to be mistaken, and justified, if at all, only by the relative silence of the SSK tradition on the role of the real. To indicate that this silence is a contingent, rather than a necessary attribute of the tradition, my aim here is to explore what can be said about the relation between the real and the articulated on the basis of empirical studies of scientific practice.

To situate what follows, let me note that the standard philosophical debate on realism concerns the reality, or lack of it, of unobservable entities appearing in well confirmed theories (Leplin 1984).

Type
Part V. Experimentation
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1986 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1986 , 1986 , pp. 196 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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

1

This paper was written while I was a member of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, and I am grateful for its support. I thank Ian Hacking for his comments on a draft of this paper; James T. Cushing for arguments over, and pointers to the literature on, realism; and Barry Barnes for keeping me up to date on his own thinking on realism.

References

Barnes, B. (1981) “On the ‘Hows’ and ‘Whys’ of Cultural Change (Response to Woolgar).” Social Studies of Science 11: 481-498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, B. (1982) “On the Extensions of Concepts and the Growth of Knowledge.” Sociological Review 30: 23-44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, B. (1983) “Social Life as Bootstrapped Induction.” Sociology 17: 524-545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloor, D. (1976) Knowledge and Social Imagery. London and Boston: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1983) How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H.M. and Pinch, T.J. (1982) Frames of Meaning: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. (1958) “Evidence and Inference in Nuclear Research.” Daedalus Fall 1958: 88-98.Google Scholar
Ehrenhaft, F. (1947) “Single Magnetic Northpoles and Southpoles and Their Importance for Science.” Lectures delivered at the University of Vienna, tentative translation by P. K. Feyerabend, 1967 (unpublished).Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P.K. (1975) Against Method. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P.K. (1978) Science in a Free Society. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
Fleck, L. (1979) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, A. (1979) “The Discovery and Nondiscovery of Parity Nonconservation.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 13: 207-238.Google Scholar
Gingras, Y. and Schweber, S.S. (1986) “Constraints on Construction.” Social Studies of Science 16: 372-383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooding, D. (1982) “Empiricism in Practice: Teleology, Economy and Observation in Faraday's Physics.” Isis 73: 46-67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooding, D. (1986a) “How Do Scientists Reach Agreement about New Observations?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 17: 205-230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooding, D. (1986b) “How Scientists Reach Agreement about New Observations.” In PSA 1986 (Proceedings of the 1986 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume I). Edited by Fine, A. and Machamer, P. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association. Pages 235-244.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1983) Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holton, G. (1978) “Subelectrons, Presuppositions and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft Dispute.” In G. Holton, The Scientific Imagination: Case Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pages 25-83.Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981) The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford and New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1983) “Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World.” In Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. Edited by Knorr-Cetina, K.D. and Mulkay, M.. Beverly Hills: Sage. Pages 141-170.Google Scholar
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979) Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Leplin, J. (ed.). (1984) Scientific Realism. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M. (1985a) “Discipline and the Material Form of Images: An Analysis of Scientific Visibility.” Social Studies of Science 15: 37-66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M. (1985b) Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory. London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Morpurgo, G., Gallinaro, G. and Palmieri, G. (1970) “The Magnetic Levitation Electrometer and Its Use in the Search for Fractionally Charged Particles.” Nuclear Instruments and Methods 79: 95-124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, S.R.F. (1986) “The Future of Dreams: From Freud to Artemidorus.” Past and Present 113: 3-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, A. (1981) “The Hunting of the Quark.” Isis 72: 216-236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, A. (1984a) “Against Putting the Phenomena First: The Discovery of the Weak Neutral Current.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 15: 85-117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, A. (1984b) Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics. Chicago and Edinburgh: University of Chicago Press/Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Pickering, A. (1985) “Pragmatic Realism and the Macrosociology of Experiment.” Unpublished paper presented at the “Uses of Experiment” Conference, Bath, England, 30 August-2 September, 1985.Google Scholar
Pickering, A. (1987) “Models in/of Scientific Practice.” To appear in Philosophy and Social Action.Google Scholar
Rudwick, M.J.S. (1985) The Great Devonian Controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, S. (1982) “History of Science and Its Sociological Reconstructions.” History ofScience 20:157-211.Google Scholar
Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S. (1985) Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Woolgar, S. (1981a) “Interests and Explanation in the Social Study of Science.” Social Studies of Science 11: 365-394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolgar, S. (1981b) “Critique and Criticism: Two Readings of Ethnomethodology.” Social Studies of Science 11: 504-514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar