Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Notes on a Complicated Relationship: Scientific Pluralism, Epistemic Relativism, and Stances.Sophie Juliane Veigl - 2020 - Synthese 199 (1-2):3485-3503.
    While scientific pluralism enjoys widespread popularity within the philosophy of science, a related position, epistemic relativism, does not have much traction. Defenders of scientific pluralism, however, dread the question of whether scientific pluralism entails epistemic relativism. It is often argued that if a scientific pluralist accepts epistemic relativism, she will be unable to pass judgment because she believes that “anything goes”. In this article, I will show this concern to be unnecessary. I will also argue that common strategies to differentiate (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Chemical Revolution Revisited.Hasok Chang - 2015 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 49:91-98.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Realism, Perspectivism, and Disagreement in Science.Michela Massimi - 2019 - Synthese 198 (Suppl 25):6115-6141.
    This paper attends to two main tasks. First, I introduce the notion of perspectival disagreement in science. Second, I relate perspectival disagreement in science to the broader issue of realism about science: how to maintain realist ontological commitments in the face of perspectival disagreement among scientists? I argue that often enough perspectival disagreement is not at the level of the scientific knowledge claims but rather of the methodological and justificatory principles. I introduce and clarify the notion of ‘agreeing-whilst-perspectivally-disagreeing’ with an (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Realism, Perspectivism, and Disagreement in Science.Michela Massimi - 2019 - Synthese 198 (Suppl 25):6115-6141.
    This paper attends to two main tasks. First, I introduce the notion of perspectival disagreement in science. Second, I relate perspectival disagreement in science to the broader issue of realism about science: how to maintain realist ontological commitments in the face of perspectival disagreement among scientists? I argue that often enough perspectival disagreement is not at the level of the scientific knowledge claims but rather of the methodological and justificatory principles. I introduce and clarify the notion of ‘agreeing-whilst-perspectivally-disagreeing’ with an (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Disagreement, Certainties, Relativism.Martin Kusch - 2018 - Topoi 40 (5):1097-1105.
    This paper seeks to widen the dialogue between the “epistemology of peer disagreement” and the epistemology informed by Wittgenstein’s last notebooks, later edited as On Certainty. The paper defends the following theses: not all certainties are groundless; many of them are beliefs; and they do not have a common essence. An epistemic peer need not share all of my certainties. Which response to a disagreement over a certainty is called for, depends on the type of certainty in question. Sometimes a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Scientific Rationality: Phlogiston as a Case Study.Jonathon Hricko - 2017 - In Timothy Joseph Lane & Tzu-Wei Hung (eds.), Rationality: Constraints and Contexts. London, UK: pp. 37-59.
    I argue that it was rational for chemists to eliminate phlogiston, but that it also would have been rational for them to retain it. I do so on the grounds that a number of prominent phlogiston theorists identified phlogiston with hydrogen in the late 18th century, and this identification became fairly well entrenched by the early 19th century. In light of this identification, I critically evaluate Hasok Chang’s argument that chemists should have retained phlogiston, and that doing so would have (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Acids and Rust: A New Perspective on the Chemical Revolution.Franklin Jacoby - 2021 - Perspectives on Science 29 (2):215-236.
    This paper uses scientific perspectivism as a lens for understanding acid experiments from the Chemical Revolution. I argue that this account has several advantages over several recent interpretations of this period, interpretations that do not neatly capture some of the historical experiments on acids. The perspectival view is distinctive in that it avoids discontinuity, allows for the rational resolution of disagreement, and is sensitive to the historical epistemic context.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Priestley’s Views on the Composition of Water and Related Airs.Geoffrey Blumenthal - 2019 - Foundations of Chemistry 21 (2):147-178.
    In some views in the history, philosophy and social studies of chemistry, Joseph Priestley is at least as well-known and cited for his objections to the new chemistry and his promotion of his own late version of the theory of phlogiston, as for his early series of discoveries about types of air for which he had become famous. These citations are generally not associated with any detailed indications about his late work from 1788 onwards and his late phlogistic theory, of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • So close no matter how far: counterfactuals in history of science and the inevitability/contingency controversy.Luca Tambolo - 2020 - Synthese 197 (5):2111-2141.
    This paper has a twofold purpose. First, it aims at highlighting one difference in how counterfactuals work in general history, on the one hand, and in history of the natural sciences, on the other hand. As we show, both in general history and in history of science good counterfactual narratives need to be plausible, where plausibility is construed as appropriate continuity of both the antecedent and the consequent of the counterfactual with what we know about the world. However, in general (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Who is Afraid of Scientific Imperialism?Roberto Fumagalli - 2018 - Synthese 195 (9):4125-4146.
    In recent years, several authors have debated about the justifiability of so-called scientific imperialism. To date, however, widespread disagreements remain regarding both the identification and the normative evaluation of scientific imperialism. In this paper, I aim to remedy this situation by making some conceptual distinctions concerning scientific imperialism and by providing a detailed assessment of the most prominent objections to it. I shall argue that these objections provide a valuable basis for opposing some instances of scientific imperialism, but do not (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Demarcating Fringe Science for Policy.Harry Collins, Andrew Bartlett & Luis Reyes-Galindo - 2017 - Perspectives on Science 25 (4):411-438.
    Fringe science has been an important topic since the start of the revolution in the social studies of science that occurred in the early 1970s. The revolution was what Collins and Evans refer to as the "second wave of science studies," while this paper is best thought of as an exercise in "third wave science studies." The first wave was that period which reached its apogee in the aftermath of the Second World War when science was seen as unquestionably the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Friedrich Miescher’s Discovery in the Historiography of Genetics: From Contamination to Confusion, from Nuclein to DNA.Sophie Juliane Veigl, Oren Harman & Ehud Lamm - 2020 - Journal of the History of Biology 53 (3):451-484.
    In 1869, Johann Friedrich Miescher discovered a new substance in the nucleus of living cells. The substance, which he called nuclein, is now known as DNA, yet both Miescher’s name and his theoretical ideas about nuclein are all but forgotten. This paper traces the trajectory of Miescher’s reception in the historiography of genetics. To his critics, Miescher was a “contaminator,” whose preparations were impure. Modern historians portrayed him as a “confuser,” whose misunderstandings delayed the development of molecular biology. Each of (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Development of Problems Within the Phlogiston Theories, 1766–1791.Geoffrey Blumenthal & James Ladyman - 2017 - Foundations of Chemistry 19 (3):241-280.
    This is the first of a pair of papers. It focuses on the development of the most notable phlogistic theories during the period 1766–1791, including the main experiments that their proponents proposed them to interpret. There was a rapid proliferation of late phlogistic theories, particularly from 1784, and the accounts of composition and important implications of the main theories are set out and their issues analysed. Each of them either reached impasses due to internal problems, or included features that made (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • A Revolution That Never Happened.Ursula Klein - 2015 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 49:80-90.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Chemistry and the Problem of Pluralism in Science: An Analysis Concerning Philosophical and Scientific Disagreements.Rein Vihalemm - 2016 - Foundations of Chemistry 18 (2):91-102.
    Chemistry, especially its historical practice, has in the philosophy of science in recent decades attracted more and more attention, influencing the turn from the vision of science as a timeless logic-centred system of statements towards the history- and practice-centred approach. The problem of pluralism in science has become a popular topic in that context. Hasok Chang’s “active normative epistemic pluralism” manifested in his book Is water H2O? Evidence, realism and pluralism, pursuing an integrated study of history and philosophy of science, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations