Duhem on Good Sense and Theory Pursuit: From Virtue to Social Epistemology

IF 0.7 2区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE International Studies in the Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2020-04-02 DOI:10.1080/02698595.2021.1888191
Jamie Shaw
{"title":"Duhem on Good Sense and Theory Pursuit: From Virtue to Social Epistemology","authors":"Jamie Shaw","doi":"10.1080/02698595.2021.1888191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The emerging consensus in the secondary literature on Duhem is that his notion of ‘good sense’ is a virtue of individual scientists that guides them choosing between empirically equal rival theories (Stump 2007. “Pierre Duhem’s Virtue Epistemology.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38 (1): 149–159; Ivanova 2010. “Pierre Duhem’s Good Sense as a Guide to Theory Choice.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (1): 58–64; Fairweather 2011. “The Epistemic Value of Good Sense.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43 (1): 139–146; Bhakthavatsalam (2017). “Duhemian Good Sense and Agent Reliabilism.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 64: 22–29). In this paper, I argue that good sense is irrelevant for theory choice within Duhem’s conception of scientific methodology. Theory choice, for Duhem, is either a pseudo-problem or addressed purely by empirical and formal desiderata depending on how it is understood. I go on to provide a positive interpretation of good sense as a feature of scientific communities that undergo particular forms of education that allow scientists to abandon theory pursuit. I conclude by suggesting that this interpretation entails that virtue epistemological readings of Duhem are insufficient for understanding good sense; we must employ a social epistemological perspective.","PeriodicalId":44433,"journal":{"name":"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02698595.2021.1888191","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2021.1888191","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT The emerging consensus in the secondary literature on Duhem is that his notion of ‘good sense’ is a virtue of individual scientists that guides them choosing between empirically equal rival theories (Stump 2007. “Pierre Duhem’s Virtue Epistemology.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38 (1): 149–159; Ivanova 2010. “Pierre Duhem’s Good Sense as a Guide to Theory Choice.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (1): 58–64; Fairweather 2011. “The Epistemic Value of Good Sense.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43 (1): 139–146; Bhakthavatsalam (2017). “Duhemian Good Sense and Agent Reliabilism.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 64: 22–29). In this paper, I argue that good sense is irrelevant for theory choice within Duhem’s conception of scientific methodology. Theory choice, for Duhem, is either a pseudo-problem or addressed purely by empirical and formal desiderata depending on how it is understood. I go on to provide a positive interpretation of good sense as a feature of scientific communities that undergo particular forms of education that allow scientists to abandon theory pursuit. I conclude by suggesting that this interpretation entails that virtue epistemological readings of Duhem are insufficient for understanding good sense; we must employ a social epistemological perspective.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
善感与理论追求——从德性到社会认识论
摘要:关于Duhem的二级文献中出现的共识是,他的“常识”概念是科学家个体的美德,引导他们在经验上平等的竞争理论之间进行选择(Stump 2007)。《皮埃尔·杜赫姆的美德认识论》,《科学史与哲学研究》第A部分38(1):149–159;伊万诺娃2010。“皮埃尔·杜赫姆的理智是理论选择的指南”,《科学史与哲学研究》a部分41(1):58–64;2011年天气晴朗。“理智的认识价值”,《科学史与哲学研究》第A部分43(1):139-146;Bhakthavatsalam(2017)。《杜赫米人的善感与代理人的可靠性》,《科学史与哲学研究》(A 64:22-29)。在本文中,我认为在杜姆的科学方法论概念中,理智与理论选择无关。对Duhem来说,理论选择要么是一个伪问题,要么纯粹由经验和形式需求来解决,这取决于人们对它的理解。我接着对科学界的一个特点——良好的判断力——进行了特殊形式的教育,使科学家放弃了理论追求——进行了积极的解释。最后,我提出,这种解释意味着对杜姆的美德认识论解读不足以理解善意;我们必须采用社会认识论的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
自引率
12.50%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: International Studies in the Philosophy of Science is a scholarly journal dedicated to publishing original research in philosophy of science and in philosophically informed history and sociology of science. Its scope includes the foundations and methodology of the natural, social, and human sciences, philosophical implications of particular scientific theories, and broader philosophical reflection on science. The editors invite contributions not only from philosophers, historians, and sociologists of science, but also from researchers in the sciences. The journal publishes articles from a wide variety of countries and philosophical traditions.
期刊最新文献
A Philosopher Looks at Science A Philosopher Looks at Science , by Nancy Cartwright, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2022, 222 pp., $12.99, £9.99 (paperback), ISBN 9781009201889 Schlick and Popper on Causality and Quantum Physics: Origins and Perspectives of the Debate Realism with Quantum Faces: The Leggett–Garg Inequalities as a Case Study for Feyerabend's Views Tightrope-Walking Rationality in Action: Feyerabendian Insights for the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics Searching for Features with Artificial Neural Networks in Science: The Problem of Non-Uniqueness
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1