Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T21:14:24.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hermeneutical Realism and Scientific Observation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Patrick A. Heelan
Patrick A. Heelan*
Affiliation:
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper will summarize positions explained and defended more fully in my book, Space-Perception and The Philosophy of Science (Heelan 1982). The philosophical genre of this paper is that of a hermeneutical phenomenology, it addresses questions from the point of view of such writers as, E. Husserl, M. Heidegger, M. Merleau-Ponty, P. Ricoeur, and H-G. Gadamer (see references). Those who are not familiar with this kind of writing may well find the exposition too brief to be persuasive; those who are, may wonder at the audacity of applying such methods of analysis to the natural sciences. It is unlikely that either group will be entirely pleased with the content of what I have to say.

My principal theses are the following: (1) reality is the content of World, and this comprises whatever is or can be given directly in a public way within perception;

Type
Part III. Scientific Realism and Observation
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1982 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1982 , 1982 , pp. 77 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1982

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

Bleicher, J. (1980). Contemporary Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics as Method, Philosophy, and Critique. London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Fleck, L. (1935). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache; Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Basel, Switzerland: Benno Schwabe & Co. (As reprinted as Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. (eds.) Thaddeus J. Trenn and Robert K. Merton. (trans.) Fred Bradley and Thaddeus J. Trenn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.)Google Scholar
Gadamer, H.G. (1965). Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen: Mohr. (As reprinted as Truth and Method, (trans.) Barden, G. and Cumming, J.. New York: Seabury Press, 1975.)Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. (1953). Sein und Zeit. 7th ed. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. (As reprinted as Being and Time. (trans.) J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. New York: Harper and Row, 1962.)Google Scholar
Heelan, P.A. (1970). “Complementarity, Context-dependence, and Quantum Logic.” Foundations of Physics 1: 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heelan, P.A. (1982). Space-Perception and the Philosophy of Science. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. (1980). Revolutions and Reconstructions in the of Science. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.Google Scholar
Holton, G. (1973). Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Husserl, E. (1954). Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie. (Husserliana Volume VI.) (ed.) Biemel, M.. The Hague: M. Nijhoff. (As reprinted as The Crisis of European Philosophy and Transcendental Phenomenology. (trans.) D. Carr. Evanston, 111.: Northwestern University Press, 1970.)Google Scholar
Ihde, D. (1979). Technics and Praxis. Dordrecht and Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.S. (1977). Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phénoménologie de la Perception. Paris: Librairie Gallimard. (As reprinted as Phenomenology of Perception, (trans.) Colin Smith. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1962.)Google Scholar
Morgan, M. (1977). Moleneux's Question: Vision, Touch, and the Philosophy of Perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1964). Personal Knowledge. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P. (1981). Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, (ed. and trans.) Thompson, J.B.. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schrödinger, E. (1958). Mind and Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sloman, A. (1980). “What Kind of Indirect Process is Visual Perception.” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 1101–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar