Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T02:00:35.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Truth and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Mary Hesse
Mary Hesse*
Affiliation:
Cambridge University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper is a reaction to two themes in recent history and philosophy of science. The first is the revival in philosophy of language of interest in truth and meaning, which relates to problems long discussed in philosophy of science. My tentative conclusion here is that tools are now available for the solution of these traditional problems, but that the detailed discussion by philosophers of language tends to by-pass philosophy of science, chiefly because it does not take sufficiently seriously questions about truth and meaning in theories and above all the question of radical theory change. A second theme, which is more implicit than explicit in this paper, concerns the fashionable tendency in post-Kuhnian philosophy of science for discussing philosophical problems in terms of case histories. These discussions have been motivated by the desire to avoid the threat of relativism and to restore rationality to theoretical science.

Type
Part V. Growth of Scientific Knowledge — To What Extent Does Prior Knowledge Condition The Acquisition of New Knowledge?
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1976 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1976 , 1976 , pp. 261 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 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.)

References

[1] Barnes, B. Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974.Google Scholar
[2] Coleman, W. “Bateson and Chromosomes: Conservative Thought in Science.” Centarurus 15(1970): 228–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Conant, J.B. “The Overthrow of the Phiogiston Theory: The Chemical Revolution of 1775-1789.” In Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science Vol. 1. Edited by Conant, J.B.. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957 Pages 65–115.Google Scholar
[4] Davidson, D. “Belief and the Basis of Meaning.” Synthese 27(1974): 309–323.10.1007/BF00484597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Field, H. “Tarski's Theory of Truth.” Journal of Philosophy 69(1972): 347–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Field, H.. “Theory Change and the Indeterminacy of Reference.” Journal of Philosophy 70(1973): 462–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Fine, A. “How to Compare Theories, Reference and Change.” Nous 9(1975): 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Forman, P. “Weimar Culture, Causality and Quantum Theory, 1918-1927: Adaption by German Physicists and Mathematicians to a Hostile Intellectual Environment.” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 3(1971): 1–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Habermas, J. Knowledge and Human Interests. (trans.) Shapiro, J.J.. Boston: Beacon Press, 1971.Google Scholar
[10] Hesse, Mary B. The Structure of Scientific Inference. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Holloway, D. “Innovation in Science—the Case of Cybernetics in the Soviet Union.” Science Studies 4(1974): 299–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] MacKenzie, D.A. and Barnes, S.B. “Biometriker versus Mendelianer. Eine Kontroverse und ihre Erklärung.” Kölner Zeltschrift fur Sociologie und Sozialpsychologie. Sonderheft 18(1975): 165–196.Google Scholar
[13] Nineham, D. Saint Mark. London: Penguin Books, 1963.Google Scholar
[14] Putnam, H. “What is ‘Realism’?” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series LXXVI. (1975/76): 177-194.Google Scholar
[15] Quine, W.V.O. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” In From a Logical Point of View 2nd. ed. rev. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961 Pages 20–46.Google Scholar
[16] Quine, W.V.O. Word and Object. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960Google Scholar
[17] Quine, W.V.O. “Reply to Chomsky.” In Words and Objections. Edited by Davidson, D. and Hintikka, J.. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1969. Pages 302–311.Google Scholar
[18] Quine, W.V.O. “Natural Kinds.” In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969. Pages 114–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19] Young, R.M. “Malthus and the Evolutionists: The Common Context of Biological and Social Theory.” Past and Present 43(1969): 109–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20] Young, R.M. “The Historiographic and Ideological Contexts of the Nineteenth Century Debate on Man's Place in Nature.” In Changing Perspectives in the History of Science. Edited by Teich, M. and Young, R.M.. London: Heinemann Educational, 1973. Pages 344–438.Google Scholar