Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-04T17:18:24.249Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Arguments in a Sartorial Mode, or The Asymmetries of History and Philosophy of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Robert J. Richards
Robert J. Richards*
Affiliation:
The University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The assumption underlying this symposium betrays an unusual transformation of attitude and an uncharacteristic openrnindedness, in that it holds that philosophers of science can leam something from historians of science. Philosophers of science used to regard historians as rather dull witted. But attitudes have changed, and for fair reason. A judicious assessment of the two disciplines in the last decade or so would suggest that many of the interesting philosophical questions have flowed from history. As I will argue in a moment, this is exactly what one should expect.

Type
Part XIV. What Has the History of Science to Say to the Philosopy of Science?
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1992 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1992 , 1993 , pp. 482 - 489
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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

Darwin, C. (1859), On the Origin of Species. London : Murray.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1974), “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme,” in Truth & Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, M. (1969), The Triumph of the Darwinian Method. Berkeley : University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gibbon, E. (1984), Memoirs of My Life. London : Penguin.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1977), Ever Since Darwin. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1992), “Heterochrony,” in Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, eds. E. F. Keller and E. Lloyd. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1985), “Darwin's Achievement,” in Reason and Rationality in Natural Science, ed. N. Rescher. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1989), “Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World,” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 13: Scientific Explanatwn, eds. P. Kitcher and W. Salmon. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Lyell, C. (1832), Principles of Geology, vol. 2. London: Maori.Google Scholar
Macaulay, T. (1828), “History,” in M iscellaneous Essays and the Lays of Ancient Rome. London: Dent, 1910.Google Scholar
Richards, R. J. (1992a), The M eaning of Evolution : the Morphological Construction and Ideological Reconstruction of Darwin's Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, R. J. ( l 992b), “The Structure of Narrative Explanation in History and Biology,” in History and Evolution, eds. M. Nitecki and D. Nitecki. Albany : State University of New York.Google Scholar
Richards, R. J. (forthcoming), “Theological Foundations of Darwin's Theory of Evolution,” in Science in Context, eds. K. Parshall and P. Theennan. Rutgers: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (1979), The Darwinian Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (forthcoming), Molecules to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutwnary Biology.Google Scholar
Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S. (1985), Leviathan and the Air Pump Princeton : Princeton University Press.Google Scholar