Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 27
  • Cited by
    This chapter has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Silverman, M. P. 1992. Raising questions: Philosophical significance of controversy in science. Science and Education, Vol. 1, Issue. 2, p. 163.

    Hallberg, Margareta and Rigné, E.M. 1994. Child Sexual Abuse - a Study of Controversy and Construction. Acta Sociologica, Vol. 37, Issue. 2, p. 141.

    Zuber, Marta Spranzi 1998. Dialectic, Dialogue, and Controversy: The Case of Galileo. Science in Context, Vol. 11, Issue. 02, p. 181.

    Freudenthal, Gideon 1998. “Controversy”. Science in Context, Vol. 11, Issue. 02, p. 155.

    Cremaschi, Sergio and Dascal, Marcelo 1998. Malthus and Ricardo: Two styles for Economic Theory. Science in Context, Vol. 11, Issue. 02, p. 229.

    Raynaud, Dominique 1999. La correspondance de F.-A. Pouchet avec les membres de l'Académie des Sciences : une réévaluation du débat sur la génération spontanée. European Journal of Sociology, Vol. 40, Issue. 02, p. 257.

    Mitchell, Gordon R. 2000. Whose Shoe Fits Best? Dubious Physics and Power Politics in the TMD Footprint Controversy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 25, Issue. 1, p. 52.

    Rehg, William 2000. Critical Science Studies as Argumentation Theory. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 30, Issue. 1, p. 33.

    Walderhaug Saetersdal, Eva M. 2000. Ethics, politics and practices in rock art conservation. Public Archaeology, Vol. 1, Issue. 3, p. 163.

    Narasimhan, M. G. 2001. Controversy in science. Journal of Biosciences, Vol. 26, Issue. 3, p. 299.

    Sigurdsson, Skúli 2001. Yin-yang genetics, or the HSD deCODE controversy. New Genetics and Society, Vol. 20, Issue. 2, p. 103.

    Velho, Lea and Velho, Paulo 2002. A controvérsia sobre o uso de alimentação 'alternativa' no combate à subnutrição no Brasil: analysis of a controversy. História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos, Vol. 9, Issue. 1, p. 125.

    Collinet, Cécile and Terral, Philippe 2006. Une controverse scientifico-technique dans le monde des sciences du sport : le cas de l'électrostimulation. Sociétés contemporaines, Vol. 64, Issue. 4, p. 67.

    Carreta, Jorge Augusto 2011. Oswaldo Cruz e a controvérsia da sorologia. História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos, Vol. 18, Issue. 3, p. 677.

    Kragh, Helge 2011. A Controversial Molecule: The Early History of Triatomic Hydrogen. Centaurus, Vol. 53, Issue. 4, p. 257.

    Wazeck, Milena 2013. Marginalization processes in science: The controversy about the theory of relativity in the 1920s. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 43, Issue. 2, p. 163.

    de Donato Rodríguez, Xavier and Zamora Bonilla, Jesús 2014. Scientific Controversies and the Ethics of Arguing and Belief in the Face of Rational Disagreement. Argumentation, Vol. 28, Issue. 1, p. 39.

    Olson, Mark E. 2014. The pleasures of theory in developmental biology Towards a Theory of Development, edited by Alessandro Minelli and Thomas Pradeu, 2014. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 304 pp. ISBN 9780199671427.. Evolution & Development, Vol. 16, Issue. 6, p. 394.

    Vuolanto, Pia 2015. Boundary Work and Power in the Controversy Over Therapeutic Touch in Finnish Nursing Science. Minerva, Vol. 53, Issue. 4, p. 359.

    Acevedo-Díaz, José Antonio García-Carmona, Antonio and Aragón, María del Mar 2016. La controversia Pasteur vs. Pouchet sobre la generación espontánea: un recurso para la formación inicial del profesorado en la naturaleza de la ciencia desde un enfoque reflexivo. Ciência & Educação (Bauru), Vol. 22, Issue. 4, p. 913.

    ×
  • Print publication year: 1987
  • Online publication date: February 2010

2 - Scientific controversy and its termination

Summary

Writing in 1921, Norman Campbell answered the question posed in the title of his book What Is Science? with the succinct definition: “Science is the study of those judgements concerning which universal agreement can be obtained”. Two possible objections occurred to him. The first was that “it is notorious that men of science differ among themselves” just as acrimoniously as philosophers and linguists do. He replies:

I do not say that all the propositions of science are universally accepted – nothing is further from my meaning; what I say is that the judgements which science studies and on which its final propositions are based are universally accepted. Difference of opinion enters not with the subject-matter, but with the conclusions that are based on them.

A second objection is that if universal agreement is a necessary condition for the subject matter of science, “a single cantankerous person … could overthrow the whole fabric of science.” His response to this is that such a challenge could come only if the person were lying or suffering from hallucination or sensory defect. After a discussion of these different possibilities, he concludes with some satisfaction:

It is a very remarkable fact that [in such cases] we can always find a test which … enables us to restore universal agreement. It is this fact, which could not be anticipated, which makes science possible, and gives its great importance to the test of universal agreement.

My reason for beginning with Campbell is not to make his view of science a focal point of discussion in this essay.

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Scientific Controversies
  • Online ISBN: 9780511628719
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511628719
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×