The Theory Theory Thrice Over: The Child as Scientist, Superscientist or Social Institution?

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Alison Gopnik and Andrew Meltzoff have argued for a view they call the ‘theory theory’: theory change in science and children are similar. While their version of the theory theory has been criticized for depending on a number of disputed claims, we argue that there is a fundamental problem which is much more basic: the theory theory is multiply ambiguous. We show that it might be claiming that a similarity holds between theory change in children and (i) individual scientists, (ii) a rational reconstruction of a Superscientist, or (iii) the scientific community. We argue that (i) is false, (ii) is non-empirical (which is problematic since the theory theory is supposed to be a bold empirical hypothesis), and (iii) is either false or doesn’t make enough sense to have a truth-value. We conclude that the theory theory is an interesting failure. Its failure points the way to a full, empirical picture of scientific development, one that marries a concern with the social dynamics of science to a psychological theory of scientific cognition.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
BISTTT-2
Upload history
Archival date: 2020-09-12
View other versions
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
151 ( #27,881 of 52,662 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
13 ( #38,193 of 52,662 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.