In a book and a series of articles Harold I. Brown has presented “the new theory of science”, which he characterizes as a “modest historicism”. I propose to examine Brown's contribution to the current debate on scientific method, and to show the inadequacy of his proposals. In particular, I want to concentrate on a fundamental concern of Brown's, namely, rationality.

Nach vielen gegenwärtigen Wissenschaftstheoretikern ist die Wissenschaftstheorie des Logischen Empirismus, wie sie in den Schriften von Carnap, Russell, Reichenbach und Hempel vertreten wird, durch die neue Wissenschaftstheorie wesentlich verbessert worden, wie sie von Hanson, Polanyi, Toulmin und Kuhn entwickelt worden ist. Aber keiner der letzteren Gegner des Logischen Empirismus hat im Detail die Erkenntnistheorie herausgearbeitet, welche der neuen Wissenschaftstheorie zugrundeliegt. Kürzlich jedoch hat Harold I. Brown, in Perception, Theory and Commitment · The New Philosophy of Science , eine klare Formulierung (...) dieser neuen, consensualen Erkenntnistheorie vorgelegt. In dem vorliegenden Artikel entwickele und bewerte ich die Ansichten von Brown und Kuhn als Repräsentanten der neuen Erkenntnistheorie. Alles in allem begründe ich, daß die neue Erkenntnistheorie bestenfalls eine äußerst unvollständige Alternative zur logisch-empiristischen Erkenntnistheorie liefert. (shrink)

“There is, in addition, a second reason for doubting that scientists reject paradigms because confronted with anomalies or counterinstances. In developing it my argument will itself foreshadow another of this essay's main theses. The reasons for doubt sketched above were purely factual; they were, that is, themselves counterinstances to a prevalent epistemological theory. As such, if my present point is correct, they can at best help to create a crisis or, more accurately, to reinforce one that is already very much (...) in existence. By themselves they cannot and will not falsify that philosophical theory, for its defenders will do what we have already seen scientists doing when confronted by anomaly. They will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict. Many of the relevant modifications and qualifications are, in fact, already in the literature. If, therefore, these epistemological counterinstances are to constitute more than a minor irritant, that will be because they help to permit the emergence of a new and different analysis of science within which they are no longer a source of trouble. Furthermore, if a typical pattern, which we shall later observe in scientific revolutions, is applicable here, these anomalies will then no longer seem to be simply facts. From within a new theory of scientific knowledge, they may instead seem very much like tautologies, statements of situations that could not conceivably have been otherwise.”. (shrink)

This paper argues that when used judiciously Bayes's law has a role to play in the evaluation of scientific hypotheses. Several examples are presented in which a rational response to evidence requires a judgement whether to apply Bayes's law or whether, for example, to redistribute prior probabilities. The paper concludes that reflection on Bayes's law illustrates how an adequate account of the rational evaluation of hypotheses requires an account of judgement--a point which several philosophers have noted despite few attempts to (...) develop an adequate theory of judgement. (shrink)