Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-28T06:22:12.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Instrumental Evaluation in Scientific Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

F. John Clendinnen
F. John Clendinnen*
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Unlike some recent authors, Hilary Putnam recognizes that we can not avoid inquiring about the normative force of the principles that guide scientific reasoning. His answer is in terms of values. In presenting his case for “Internal Realism”, he argues that values are presupposed in statements of fact (1981, pp. 128-134). The central thesis in his argument is that truth is not a correspondence with an “unconceptualized reality” and that “the claim that science seeks to discover the truth can mean no more than that science seeks to construct a world picture which, in the ideal limit, satisfies certain criteria of rational acceptability” (p. 130). We adopt these criteria because having a theory which conforms to them is valuable to us; it is part of human flourishing (pp. 133-134).

Type
Part IV. General Philosophy Of Science (A)
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1986 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1986 , 1986 , pp. 217 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1986

References

Clendinnen, F. John. (1982). “Rational Expectation and Simplicity.” In What? Where? When? Why? Edited by Robert McLaughlin. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Pages 1–25.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. (1965). Fact, Fiction and Forecast. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. 2nd ed. (1st ed., 1955).Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. (1981). Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. (1935). Wahrscheinlichkeitslehre Eine Untersuchung uber die logisohen und mathematischen Grundlgaen der Wahrscheinliohkeitsrechnung. Leiden: Sijthoff. (As reprinted as The Theory of Probability. 2nd ed. (trans.) E.H. Hutten and M. Reichenbach. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1919.)Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid. (1964). “Induction as Vindication.” Philosophy of Science 31: 197–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid. (1979). “More on Givenness and Explanatory Coherence.” In Justification and Knowledge. Edited by George S. Pappas. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Pages 169- 182. (This paper is a revised version of the central argument of “Givenness and Explanatory Coherence.” The Journal of Philosophy 70 (1973): 612–624.)Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar