Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-mmrw7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T09:56:57.353Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comments and Critique

Yes! There Is a Hermeneutics of Natural Science: A Rejoinder to Markus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Patrick Heelan
Patrick Heelan
Affiliation:
Department of PhilosophyState University of New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this rejoinder to Gyorgy Markus (Science in Context 1:5–51), I argue that although there are nonphilosophical hermeneutical studies of communication among scientists (a “weak” hermeneutics) from which much can be learned about scientific practices, there is also the philosophical genre of a hermeneutics of natural science (a “strong” hermeneutics), with which this paper is concerned. The former is the nonphilosophical use of hermeneutics in the study of texts and historical sources; the latter is a philosophy pursued within a working canon of philosophical works defined principally by the writings of Heidegger and Husserl. There is also a hermeneutically sensitive analytic philosophy of science, such as in the work of Kuhn, Toulmin, and Elkana. These genres are distinguished by their literary canons and their basic phenomenologies or critical experiential givens; each genre comprises an exemplary phenomenology as understood with the help of a characteristic fundamental literary canon.

I argue that analytic philosophy is pursued within a canon that makes it difficult to raise hermeneutical questions about natural science, and that it assumes a generally positivistic phenomenology. I argue that hermeneutical phenomenology currently defines itself in dialectical opposition to “science” as understood (positivistically) by analytic philosophy, and has failed to exploit the opportunity of making its own positive contribution to the philosophy of science by examining for itself the phenomenology of laboratory work, especially data production, and the transformation of the language of theory into a descriptive language of scientific phenomena. A “strong” hermeneutical philosophy of natural science, then, challenges both analytic philosophy and the existing tradition of hermeneutical phenomenology.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1989 , pp. 477 - 488
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Böhm,, R. 1964. “Les sciences exactes et l'idéal husserlien d'un savoir rigoureux.” Archives de Philosophie 27.Google Scholar
Connolly, J. M., and Keutner, T., eds. 1988. Hermeneutics vs Science. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Cushing, J., and McMullin, E., eds. 1989. Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. 1979. What Computers Can't Do, 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. 1980. “Holism and Hermeneutics.” Review of Metaphysics, 34:3–24.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H., and Dreyfus, S. 1988. Mind over Machine. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H.-G. 1975. Truth and Method. New York: Seabury Press.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H.-G. 1982. Reason in the Age of Science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heelan, P. 1983a. Space-Perception and the Philosophy of Science. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Paperback edition, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heelan, P. 1983b. “Natural Science as a Hermeneutic of Instrumentation.” Philosophy of Science 50:181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heelan, P. 1987. “Husserl's Later Philosophy of Science.” Philosophy of Science 54:368–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heelan, P. 1988. “A Heideggerian Meditation on Science and Art.” In Hermeneutic Phenomenology, edited by Kockelmans, J. J., 257–76. Washington, D.C.: CARP and University Press of America.Google Scholar
Heelan, P. 1989a. “The Philosophical Implications of Bell's Theorem.” Paper read at the APA (Pacific) Meeting, Oakland, California.Google Scholar
Heelan, P. 1989b. “After Experiment: Realism and Research.” American Philosophical Quarterly 26 (1989): 297–308.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. 1962. Being and Time. London: SCM Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. 1967. What Is a Thing? South Bend, Ind.: Regnery/Gateway Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. 1977. The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. New York: Harper, Colophon Press.Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund 1970. The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. Translated by Evanston, D. Carr., Ill.: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Kockelmans, J. J. 1988. Hermeneutic Phenomenology. Washington, D.C.: CARP and University Press of America.Google Scholar
Markus, Gyorgy 1987. “Why Is There No Hermeneutics of Natural Sciences? Some Preliminary Theses.”Science in Context 1:5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962. The Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1968. The Visible and the Invisible. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P. 1981. Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences. Edited by Thompson, J. B. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rouse, Joseph. 1987a. “Husserlain Phenomenology and Scientific Realism.” Philiosophy of Science 54:222–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouse, Joseph 1987b. Knowledge and Power: Towards a Political Philosophy of Science. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Winograd, T., and Flores, F. 1987. Understanding Computers and Cognition. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Wise, M. Norton. 1988. “Mediating Machines.” Science in Context 2:77–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar