“Dare Explanations” (Wagerklärungen): Hypothetical Thinking in Late Eighteenth- and Early Nineteenth-Century German Philosophy of Science

J. Schickore
{"title":"“Dare Explanations” (Wagerklärungen): Hypothetical Thinking in Late Eighteenth- and Early Nineteenth-Century German Philosophy of Science","authors":"J. Schickore","doi":"10.1086/726182","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article unearths little-studied accounts of the status and role of hypotheses in late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Germany. German thinkers regarded hypotheses, including those about unobservable causes for visible effects, as legitimate and necessary ingredients of scientific inquiry. They debated the nature of probable hypotheses resulting from inductions, proposed heuristics for making causal hypotheses, and advanced criteria for assessing and testing them. My survey of these rich and multifaceted discussions shows that many themes and topics that we commonly associate with modern philosophy of science were discussed decades earlier by authors of educational and practice-oriented books on logic: consequential testing, underdetermination, auxiliary hypotheses, the problem of unobservable entities, fallibility, and elaborate methodologies of observation and experimentation. It also illuminates the long-term history of present-day criteria for hypothesis evaluation.","PeriodicalId":42878,"journal":{"name":"HOPOS-The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science","volume":"6 1","pages":"387 - 412"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HOPOS-The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726182","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article unearths little-studied accounts of the status and role of hypotheses in late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Germany. German thinkers regarded hypotheses, including those about unobservable causes for visible effects, as legitimate and necessary ingredients of scientific inquiry. They debated the nature of probable hypotheses resulting from inductions, proposed heuristics for making causal hypotheses, and advanced criteria for assessing and testing them. My survey of these rich and multifaceted discussions shows that many themes and topics that we commonly associate with modern philosophy of science were discussed decades earlier by authors of educational and practice-oriented books on logic: consequential testing, underdetermination, auxiliary hypotheses, the problem of unobservable entities, fallibility, and elaborate methodologies of observation and experimentation. It also illuminates the long-term history of present-day criteria for hypothesis evaluation.
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
“大胆解释”(Wagerklärungen): 18世纪末和19世纪初德国科学哲学中的假设思维
本文揭示了假说在18世纪末和19世纪初德国的地位和作用。德国思想家认为假设,包括那些关于可见结果的不可观察原因的假设,是科学探索的合法和必要的组成部分。他们讨论了由归纳法产生的可能假设的本质,提出了做出因果假设的启发式方法,并提出了评估和检验这些假设的先进标准。我对这些丰富而多方面的讨论的调查表明,我们通常与现代科学哲学联系在一起的许多主题和话题,在几十年前就被以教育和实践为导向的逻辑书籍的作者讨论过:结果性测试、不确定性、辅助假设、不可观察实体的问题、可错性以及观察和实验的详细方法。它还说明了假设评估的现代标准的长期历史。
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Conceptual Analysis and the Analytic Method in Kant’s Prize Essay Johann Nikolaus Tetens (1736-1807) and the Idea of Phoneme. A Chapter in the History of Linguistic Thought What Conceptual Engineering Can Learn From The History of Philosophy of Science: Healthy Externalism and Metasemantic Plasticity Sellars, Analyticity, and a Dynamic Picture of Language Special Section Introduction
×
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