Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T07:06:20.757Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What is the Question Concerning the Rationality of Science?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Harvey Siegel
Harvey Siegel*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Miami
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The traditional views of science as the possessor of a special method, and as the epitome or apex of rationality, have come under severe challenges for a variety of historical, psychological, sociological, political, and philosophical reasons. As a result, many philosophers are either denying science its claim to rationality, or else casting about for a new account of its rationality. In this paper a defense of the traditional view is offered. It is argued that contemporary philosophical discussion regarding the rationality of science is plagued by a failure to distinguish among three different questions, all taken to be “the“ question of the rationality of science. Once these questions are delineated, it becomes possible to answer one of them in such a way that the traditional link between science's rationality and its method is reestablished–-although the scientific method is itself given a non-traditional rendering. In short, it is argued that there is a feature of science which is appropriately characterized as its method; that this method does in fact secure science's rationality; and that science is therefore correctly construed as preeminently rational. It is suggested in addition that the philosophy of science is itself best seen as a primarily epistemological activity, and consequently that a correction from the excessively historicist conception of recent philosophy of science is in order.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , December 1985 , pp. 517 - 537
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 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.)

Footnotes

†

I am grateful to the members of the Philosophy Department of Memphis State University, especially Norman Gillespie, and to two anonymous referees for very helpful criticisms of an earlier version of this paper.

References

REFERENCES

Bradshaw, G. F.; Langley, P. W.; and Simon, H. A. (1983), “Studying Scientific Discovery by Computer Simulation”, Science 222: 971–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clendinnen, F. J. (1983), “The Rationality of Method Versus Historical Relativism”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 14: 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ennis, R. H. (1979), “Research in Philosophy of Science Bearing on Science Education”, in Current Research in Philosophy of Science, Asquith, Peter D. and Kyburg, Henry E. Jr. (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 138–70.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1962), “Rational Action”, in Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 35: 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1979), “Scientific Rationality: Analytic vs. Pragmatic Perspectives”, in Rationality Today, Geraets, T. G. (ed.). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, pp. 45–66.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1983), “Valuation and Objectivity in Science”, in Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis, Cohen, R. S. and Laudan, L. (eds.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 73–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd edition, enlarged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1983), “Rationality and Theory Choice”, Journal of Philosophy 80: 563–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1977), Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1981), Science and Hypothesis. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, M. (1972), Concepts of Science Education. Glenview IL: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
Monk, R. (1977), “The Logic of Discovery”, Philosophy Research Archives 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton-Smith, W. H. (1981), The Rationality of Science. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickles, T. (ed.) (1980a), Scientific Discovery: Case Studies. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickles, T. (ed.) (1980b), Scientific Discovery, Logic and Rationality. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1981), Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudner, R. S. (1966), Philosophy of Social Science. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1945), A History of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1983), “Carl G. Hempel on the Rationality of Science”, Journal of Philosophy 80: 555–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, I. (1974), Four Pragmatists. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Siegel, H. (1980a), “Discovery, Justification and the Naturalizing of Epistemology”, Philosophy of Science 47: 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, H. (1980b), “Objectivity, Rationality, Incommensurability, and More”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 31: 359–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, H. (1983), “Truth, Problem Solving and the Rationality of Science”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 14: 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1972), Human Understanding. Vol. 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar