Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T21:49:49.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Logical Formalism to Control Structure: The Evolution of Methodological Understanding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

C. A. Hooker
C. A. Hooker*
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Over the past two centuries the character of science has changed markedly and crucially. When humans had relatively small amounts of information and energy available they perforce had no option but to attempt to describe objectively a world which behaved independently of them. The basic practical problem was to discover what the pattern of the world was so as to adapt themselves as best they may to it, a little in anticipation of events, but mostly in reaction to them. It is these circumstances which give most sense to the empiricist paradigm of objective knowledge.

But the more information and energy is available to us, the more we are able to ascend from merely correct description of what is to a grasp of what is possible. Newton's laws don't merely describe the paths of the actual projectiles that have fallen and will fall, they describe the paths of all possible projectiles.

Type
Part VII. History and Methodology
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1988 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1988 , 1988 , pp. 211 - 221
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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

Glasstone, S. and Lovberg, R. H. (1960). Controlled Thermonuclear Reactions. New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. (1980). Theory and Evidence, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hahlweg, K. and Hooker, C. A. (1989). “Evolutionary Epistemology and Philosophy of Science”, in New Issues in Evolutionary Epistemology, Hahlweg, K. and Hooker, C. A. (eds.). New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Hooker, C. A. (1981). “Towards a General Theory of Reduction, Part I: Historical Framework”, Dialog XX: 38–59.Google Scholar
Hooker, C. A. (1987). A Realistic Theory of Science. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Rohrlich, F. (1988). “The Logic of Reduction: The Case of Gravitation”. Preprint, Department of Physics, Syracuse University, June 1988.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1985). “Reply” in Images of Science: Essays on Realism and Empiricism, Churchland, P. M. and Hooker, C. A. (eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar