Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T18:59:49.952Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Convergence and Content of Scientific Opinion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

James T. Cushing
James T. Cushing*
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two of the most interesting and important questions today in the philosophy of science are (1) how (I.e., by what mechanisms) scientific opinion is made to converge to certain laws and theories and (2) what these laws and theories tell us. Larry Laudan's (1984a) Science and Values addresses the first problem and Nancy Cartwright's (T9BT) How the Laws of Physics Lie the second. Although the Issues are different, they are related and do have an important similarity. Both exhibit a tension between simplicity and complexity. In the case of scientific.consensus, the situation at first seems neat and simplesince there is usually an overall agreement among scientists about the major features of laws and theories. However, a closer look reveals a much more Involved Interplay among several factors to produce that convergence. On the other hand, the actual phenomena of the real world appear quite Involved whereas the fundamental laws science arrives at have a simplicity about them (at least to the trained or Indoctrinated eye).

Type
Part VII. Realism and Empiricism
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1984 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1984 , 1984 , pp. 211 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1984

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

1

For comments related to a preliminary version of this paper I wish to thank Allan Franklin,'George Gale, Martin Krieger, Larry Laudan, Ernan McMullin, Michael Moravcsik and Andy Pickering. Of course, I do not wish to imply that they necessarily agree with my opinions.

References

Aharonov, Y. and Bohm, D. (1959). “Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in Quantum Theory.” Physical Review 115: 485-491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Radio Relay League (staff) (1954). The Radio Amateur's Handbook. West Hartford: American Radio Relay League.Google Scholar
Physics, Aristotle (As reprinted in Great Books of the Western World. Volume 8. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952. Pages 259-355.)Google Scholar
Asquith, P.D. and Niokles, T. (eds.). (1983). PSA 1982, Volume 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Bohm, D. (1952). “A Suggested Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden’ Variables I & II.” Physical Review 85: 166-193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, D. and Vigier, J.V. (1954). “Model of the Causal Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of a Fluid with Irregular Fluctuations.” Physical Review 96: 208-216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Brown, L.M. and Hoddeson, L. (1983). The Birth of Particle Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buchdahl, G. (1970). “History of Science and Criteria of Choice.” In Stuewer (1970). Pages 204-245.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushing, J.T. (1982). “Models and Methodologies in Current Theoretical High-Energy Physic3.” Synthese 50: 5-101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushing, J.T. (1983). “Models, High-Energy Theoretical Physics and Realism.” In Asquith and Nlckles (1983). Pages 31-56.Google Scholar
Cushing, J.T. (1984a). “The Spring-Mass System Revisited.” American Journal of Physics 52: forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushing, J.T. (1984b). “la There Just One Possible World? Contingency vs. the Bootstrap.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 15: forthcoming.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (1982). “Antinomies of Entanglement: The Puzzling Case of the Tangled Statistics.” The Journal of Philosophy 79: 733-747.Google Scholar
Ford, J. (1983). “How Random i s a Coin Toss?” Physics Today 36(4): 40-47. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1981). Science and Hypothesis. (University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, Volume 19.) Dordrecht: D. Heidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1984a). Science and Values. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1984b). “Explaining the Success of Science: Beyond Epistemic Realism and Relativism.” In Science and Reality. Edited by J. Cushing, C. Delaney, and G. Gutting. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Misner, C.W. (1977). “Cosmology and Theology.” In Yourgrau and Breck (1977). Pages 75-100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, F.H. (1951). Fundamentals of Electronics. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Monod, J. (1970). Le hasard et la nécessité. Paris: Editions du Seuil. (As reprinted as Chance and Necessity, (trans.) A. Wainhouse. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971.)Google Scholar
Moravcsik, M.J. (1973). “Measures of Scientific Growth.” Research Policy 2 : 266-275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, A. (1983). “Producing a World: Transformations of Experimental Practice in the History of High-Energy Physics.” Paper delivered at the History of Science Society Meeting, Norwalk, CT, 27-30 October, 1983.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). “What is mathematical truth?” In Mathematics. Matter and Method. (Philosophical Papers, Volume 1.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pages 60-78.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1978). Meaning and the Moral Sciences. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Rohrlich, F. and Hardin, L. (1983). “Established Theories.” Philosophy of Science 50: 603-617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuewer, R.H. (ed.). (1970). Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science. (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Volume 5.) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1963). Foresight and Understanding. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1972). Human Understanding. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B.C. (1980): The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B.C. (1984). “The Problem of Indistinguishable Particles.” In Science and Reality. Edited by J. Cushing, C. Delaney, and G. Gutting. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Yourgrau, W. and Breck, A.D. (eds.). (1977). Cosmology, History and Theology. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar