Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T20:58:56.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Doing Science, Writing Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Jutta Schickore
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article identifies a fundamental distinction in scientific practice: the mismatch between what scientists do and what they state they did when they communicate their findings in their publications. The insight that such a mismatch exists is not new. It was already implied in Hans Reichenbach's distinction between the contexts of discovery and justification, and it is taken for granted across the board in philosophy of science and science studies. But while there is general agreement that the mismatch exists, the epistemological implications of that mismatch are not at all clear. Philosophers, historians, and sociologists of different stripes have expressed widely different views about how one should understand and interpret the relation between what scientists do and what they state they did. This article surveys a number of approaches to the mismatch. Based on this survey, I offer an assessment of the epistemological significance of the mismatch and identify the major meta-epistemological challenges that it poses for the analysis of scientific practice.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 75 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 323 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

Footnotes

‡

A version of this paper was presented in the HPS Reading Group at the Department of HPSC, IU Bloomington, in spring 2007. I thank the audience as well as Domenico Bertoloni Meli, Jordi Cat, Uljana Feest, Jan Frercks, John Johnson, and two anonymous referees for this journal for their critique and helpful suggestions. The final version of this article was produced while I was a member of the Institute for Advanced Study (Princeton). Generous support from the Mellon Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Dear, P. (1991), “Narratives, Anecdotes, and Experiments: Turning Experience into Science in the Seventeenth Century”, in Dear, P. (ed.), The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument: Historical Studies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 135–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleck, L. (1981), Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, A. (1994), “How to Avoid the Experimenters’ Regress”, How to Avoid the Experimenters’ Regress 25:463–491.Google Scholar
Franklin, A., and Howson, C. (1998), “Comment on ‘The Structure of a Scientific Paper’ by Frederick Suppe”, Comment on ‘The Structure of a Scientific Paper’ by Frederick Suppe 65:411–416.Google Scholar
Gilbert, G. N. (1976), “The Transformation of Research Findings into Scientific Knowledge”, The Transformation of Research Findings into Scientific Knowledge 6:281–306.Google Scholar
Harwood, W. S. (2004), “A New Model for Inquiry: Is the Scientific Method Dead?” Journal of College Science Teaching 33 (7): 29–33..Google Scholar
Holmes, F. L. (1987), “Scientific Writing and Scientific Discovery”, Scientific Writing and Scientific Discovery 78:220–235.Google ScholarPubMed
Holmes, F. L. (1991), “Argument and Narrative in Scientific Writing”, in Dear, P. (ed.), The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument: Historical Studies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 164–181.Google Scholar
Howard, D. (2006), “Lost Wanderers in the Forest of Knowledge: Some Thoughts on the Discovery-Justification Distinction”, in Schickore, J. and Steinle, F. (eds.), Revisiting Discovery and Justification: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction. Dordrecht: Springer, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981), The Manufacture of Knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1974), “History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions”, in Elkana, Y. (ed.), The Interaction between Science and Philosophy. Atlantic Highlands, NY: Humanities Press, 195–241.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1987), Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B., and Woolgar, S. ([1979] 1986), Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Lipton, P. (1998), “The Best Explanation of a Scientific Paper”, The Best Explanation of a Scientific Paper 65:406–410.Google Scholar
Medawar, P. ([1963] 1996), “Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud?”, reprinted in The Strange Case of the Spotted Mice and Other Classic Essays on Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 33–39.Google Scholar
Morgan, W. J. (1968), “Rises, Trenches, Great Faults and Crustal Blocks”, Rises, Trenches, Great Faults and Crustal Blocks 73:1959–1982.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1938), Experience and Prediction: An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. (2006), “Freedom in a Scientific Society: Reading the Context of Reichenbach's Contexts”, in Schickore, J. and Steinle, F. (eds.), Revisiting Discovery and Justification: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction. Dordrecht: Springer, 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schickore, J., and Steinle, F. (2006), Revisiting Discovery and Justification: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiemann, G. (2006), “Inductive Justification and Discovery: On Hans Reichenbach's Foundation of the Autonomy of the Philosophy of Science”, in Schickore, J. and Steinle, F. (eds.), Revisiting Discovery and Justification: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction. Dordrecht: Springer, 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, S., and Schaffer, S. (1985), Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (1998), “The Structure of a Scientific Paper”, The Structure of a Scientific Paper 65:381–405.Google Scholar