The Republic of Science and Its Constitution: Some Reflections on Scientific Methods as Institutions



Jarvie’s Popper’s social view of science from Logik der Forschung to The Open Society and Its Enemies is used to discuss whether the “proto-constitution” of science that, according to Jarvie, Popper formulated is a sound justification of a falsificationist methodology, and whether the view of society and of social science grounding Popper’s views could be substituted for some more updated insights from contemporary social science. In particular, I defend that a game-theoretic view to the choice of norms, one that takes into account the large variety of real goals and real agents having some role in the scientific process, would be a more appropriate approach to understand the “constitution of science.”



The author thanks Spain’s government research projects PRX14-00007 and FFI2014-57258-P.


  1. Buchanan, James, and Gordon Tullock. 1962. The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caldwell, Bruce. 2006. Popper and Hayek: Who Influenced Whom? In Karl Popper: A Centenary Assessment, ed. Ian Jarvie, Karl Milford, and David Miller, vol. I, 111–124. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  3. Hands, Wade D. 1992. Falsification, Situational Analysis and Scientific Research Programs. In Post-Popperian Methodology of Economics: Recovering Practice, ed. Neil De Marchi, 19–53. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Jarvie, Ian C. 2001. The Republic of Science: The Emergence of Popper’s Social View of Science, 1935–1945. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  5. Lipsey, Richard G. 1963. Introduction to Positive Economics. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
  6. Merton, Robert K. 1942. Science and Technology in a Democratic Order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1: 115–126.Google Scholar
  7. Morgan, Mary S. 2012. The World in the Model: How Economists Work and Think. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Niiniluto, Ilkka. 1998. Verisimilitude: The Third Period. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Popper, Karl R. 2002 [1934]. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 1944. The Poverty of Historicism, I, II, III. Economica, 11: 86–103, 119–137; 12: 69–89.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 1945. The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  13. Zamora Bonilla, Jesús P. 2002. Scientific Inference and the Pursuit of Fame: A Contractarian Approach. Philosophy of Science 69: 300–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 2008. Methodology and the Constitution of Science: A Game-Theoretic Approach. In Scientific Competition, ed. M. Albert et al. Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PhilosophyUNED, National Distance Education UniversityMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations