William Whewell raised a series of objections concerning John Stuart Mill’s philosophy of science which suggested that Mill’s views were not properly informed by the history of science or by adequate reflection on scientific practices. The aim of this paper is to revisit and evaluate this incisive Whewellian criticism of Mill’s views by assessing Mill’s account of Michael Faraday’s discovery of electrical induction. The historical evidence demonstrates that Mill’s reconstruction is an inadequate reconstruction of this historical episode and the scientific (...) practices Faraday employed. But a study of Faraday’s research also raises some questions about Whewell’s characterization of this discovery. Thus, this example provides an opportunity to reconsider the debate between Whewell and Mill concerning the role of the sciences in the development of an adequate philosophy of scientific methodology.Keywords: Inductivism; Experiment; Theory; Methodology; Electromagnetism. (shrink)

(1979). William Whewell, natural theology and the philosophy of science in mid nineteenth century Britain. Annals of Science: Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 493-516.

The contrast between the two approaches alluded to in the title has gained a certain prominence in our own day. With the knowledge of hindsight it will be of interest therefore to study its incidence in an earlier period, in the writings of Whewell and Mill, Which may thus yield added significance for a later generation. Right at the start there is a difficulty. Not all inductivists agree on their principles, or their interpretation of the logic of scientific reasoning, and (...) the same is true of deductivism, and the differences can therefore be discussed only in connection with individual writers. When this is done, we do find moreover some considerable variations in the treatment of their respective doctrines by the members of each of our two schools. To define these differences, we need a finer structure of elements of classification, indicative of criteria for the acceptance of scientific hypotheses. (shrink)

The question whether attempts to vindicate induction should be abandoned in favor of (other) problems of rationality is pressing and difficult. How may we decide rationally when standards for rationality are at issue? It may be useful to first know how we have decided in the past. Whewell's philosophy of science and the reaction to it are discussed. Whewell's contemporaries mistakenly thought that only an inductivist research program could produce an adequate theory of rationality. But this very move violated their (...) own standards of rationality. We should now avoid making the same mistake again. We should return to Whewell's rejected proposal to make the philosophy of science historical and seek thereby to improve rational practice. (shrink)

Auguste Comte et William Whewell sont contemporains. Tous les deux ont écrit sur de nombreux sujets : histoire et philosophie des sciences, astronomie, mécanique, philosophie morale et réflexions sur l’éducation. Leurs œuvres de philosophie des sciences sont parmi les plus importantes du XIXe siècle. Mais si celle du premier a marqué le siècle, celle du second n’a fait que de timides apparitions. C’est probablement par John Stuart Mill, à la fois disciple et sectateur de Comte et farouche opposant de Whewell, (...) que les deux philosophes ont connu chacun l’œuvre de l’autre. Leurs œuvres présentent des ressemblances dans la démarche et dans la méthode mais elles s’opposent sur de nombreuses questions de fond. On cherche à montrer la grandeur du philosophe britannique à qui l’histoire n’a pas fait la place que l’immensité de son œuvre aurait dû lui valoir.Auguste Comte and William Whewell are contemporaries. Both wrote on numerous topics : i.e. history, philosophy of sciences astronomy, mechanics, moral philosophy and thoughts on education. Their works are among the most important ones of the 19th century. But whereas those of the former left their mark on the century, those of the latter were but rather shyly prominent. It is most probably through John Stuart Mill, both a disciple and worshipper of Comte’s whilst a fierce opponent of Whewell’s that both philosophers both came across each other’s works. Both their works are similar in the methodological approach but they differ greatly on fundamental topics. One aims at showing the greatness of the British philosopher to whom history never gave the reputation he should have been granted by his works. (shrink)

: This paper discusses the American scientist and philosopher Charles S. Peirce's (1839–1914) classification of the sciences from the contemporary perspective of interdisciplinary studies. Three theses are defended: (1) Studies on interdisciplinarity pertain to the intermediate class of Peirce's classification of all science, the sciences of review (retrospective science), ranking below the sciences of discovery (heuretic sciences) and above practical science (the arts). (2) Scientific research methods adopted by interdisciplinary inquiries are cross-categorial. Making them converge to an increasing extent with (...) the sciences of discovery, especially the methodeutic of normative logic, is one of the future challenges for studies on interdisciplinarity. (3) The overall structure of Peirce's classification, were it to be applied in today's situation, would not, in any major respect, be radically different from what it was designed to reflect a hundred years ago, in spite of the virtually exponential creation and production of new domains and the massive increase in investment in research and scientific publication. Accordingly, charges that the sciences of discovery are becoming ever more fragmented are not new. (shrink)