Hailed on publication in 1957 as "probably the only book published this year that will outlive the century," this is a brilliant of the idea that there are ...

This paper is part of a larger project defending of the foundations of microeconomics against recent criticisms by philosophers. Here, we undermine one source of these criticisms, arising from philosophers' disappointment with the performance of microeconomic tools, in particular game theory, when these are applied to normative decision theory. Hollis and Sugden have recently articulated such disappointment in a sophisticated way, and have argued on the basis of it that the economic conception of rationality is inadequate. We argue, however, that (...) their claim rests upon a misunderstanding of the concept of a game as it is used in microeconomics. (shrink)

Imagine asking a typical, well informed, contemporary philosopher whether or not she considered biology to be a science. Our informant, being a philosopher, would not necessarily respond with the straightforward “of course” that would be expected from anyone else. She might first reason through a complicated and heavily qualified definition of science, or she might distinguish certain parts of biology that she held to be more clearly scientific than others. If she were partial to a certain sort of critical stance, (...) she might question the political basis for wishing to dignify certain parts of our inquisitive practice with the honorific ‘scientific’ in the first place. But there is at least one thing that she would almost certainly not do. She would not simultaneously embrace a version of the conventional philosophical view of science and deny that biology is a science. This is despite the fact that, as she will acknowledge, biology exploits a range of methodologies and explanatory strategies that have not yet admitted of systematic, consensual philosophical explication. (shrink)

L'histoire des sciences témoigne fréquemment de tentatives méthodologiquement divergentes visant à résoudre les anomalies d'un programme de recherche scientifique. L'accumulation d'anomalies peut être pour certains une incitation à scruter les faits, alors que pour d'autres c'est l'occasion d'une réflexion sur les fondements théoriques des constructions spéculatives. C'est en ce sens que, dans la crise relativiste de la physique classique, Einstein plaide pour une réflexion sur les fondements de la science physique alors que Poincaré soutient au contraire que la solution à (...) une telle crise reste une affaire purement expérimentale. «Nous devons», affirme-t-il, «passer la main aux expérimentateurs et, tandis que nous attendrons d'eux une décision dans le débat, nous ne nous préoccuperons pas de ces problèmes inquiétants et, tranquillement, nous continuerons à travailler comme si les problèmes étaient toujours valables». L'histoire des sciences a également tranché sur la question de savoir qui, de Poincaré ou d'Einstein, avait raison en la matière; et ce quh'a montr' la résolution d'une telle crise n'est pas sans importance pour la philosophie des sciences. À certains instants privilégés de l'évolution scientifique, la recherche d'une plus grande unitè et profondeur théoriques permet une explication plus empirique des faits. (shrink)