Introduction: Mapping “Going Amiss”

  • Giora Hon
  • Jutta Schickore
  • Friedrich Steinle
Part of the Boston Studies In The Philosophy Of Science book series (BSPS, volume 267)


Scientific Practice Experimental Knowledge Past Failure Epistemic Role Past Scientist 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Buchwald, J. Z. and A. Franklin (2005). “Introduction: beyond disunity and historicism.” In: Buchwald, J. Z. and A. Franklin (eds.), Wrong for the Right Reasons. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hon, G. (1989). “Towards a typology of experimental errors: an epistemological view.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 20: 469–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hon, G. (1995). “Going wrong: to make a mistake, to fall into an error.” Review of Metaphysics 49: 3–20.Google Scholar
  4. Hon, G. (2004). “Putting error to (historical) work: error as a tell-tale in the studies of Kepler and Galileo.” Centaurus 46: 58–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Mayo, D. (1996). Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Schickore, J. (2005). “‘Through thousands of errors we reach the truth’—but how? On the epistemic roles of error in scientific practice.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 36: 539–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Allchin, D. (1997). “A twentieth-century phlogiston: constructing error and differentiating domains.” Perspectives on Science 5: 81–127.Google Scholar
  2. Allchin, D. (2001). “Error types.” Perspectives on Science 9: 38–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates, D. (1996). “The epistemology of error in late enlightenment France.” Eighteenth-Century Studies 29: 307–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cadeddu, A. (2000). “The heuristic function of ‘error’ in the scientific methodology of Louis Pasteur: the case of the silkworm diseases.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 22: 3–28.Google Scholar
  5. Canguilhem, G. (1991). “A new concept in pathology: error.” The Normal and the Pathological. New York: Zone Books, pp. 275–287.Google Scholar
  6. Coen, D. R. (2002). “Scientists’ errors, nature’s fluctuations, and the law of radioactive decay, 1899–1926.” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 32: 179–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elliot, K. (2004). “Error as means to discovery.” Philosophy of Science 71: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gurba, K. and E. Zarnecka-Bialy (eds.) (1998). Philosophy and Error. Krakow: Jagiellonian University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hon, G. (1998). “‘If this be error’: probing experiment with error.” In: Heidelberger, M. and F. Steinle (eds.), Experimental EssaysVersuche zum Experiment, Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 227–248.Google Scholar
  10. Holton, G. (guest ed.) (2005). Errors: consequences of big mistakes in the natural and social sciences, Social Research 72 (special issue).Google Scholar
  11. Janis, A. and T. Horowitz (Eds.) (1994). Scientific Failure. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefields.Google Scholar
  12. Kyburg, H. E. (1992). “Measuring errors of measurement.” In: Savage, C. W. and P. Ehrlich (eds.), Philosophical and Foundational Issues in Measurement Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 75–91.Google Scholar
  13. Matthen, M. and E. Levy (1984). “Teleology, error, and the human immune system.” Journal of Philosophy 81: 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mellor, D. H. (1965). “Experimental error and deducibility.” Philosophy of Science 32: 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mittelstraβ, J. (1999). “Vom Nutzen des Irrtums in der Wissenschaft.” In: Carl, W. and L. Daston (eds.), Wahrheit und Geschichte: Ein Kolloquium zu Ehren des 60. Geburtstages von Lorenz Krüger. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 101–114.Google Scholar
  16. Olesko, K. M. (1995). “The meaning of precision. The exact sensibility in early nineteenth-century Germany.” In: Wise, M. N. (ed.), The Values of Precision. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 103–134.Google Scholar
  17. Petroski, H. (1994). Design paradigms. Case Histories of Error and Judgment in Engineering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Rasmussen, N. (1993). “Facts, artifacts, and mesosomes: practicing epistemology with the electron microscope.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 24: 227–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rescher, N. (2007). Error: On Our Predicament When Things Go Wrong. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  20. Rudge, D. W. (2001). “Kettlewell from an error statistician’s point of view.” Perspectives on Science 9: 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schickore, J. (2002). “(Ab)Using the past for present purposes: exposing contextual and transcontextual features of error.” Perspectives on Science 10: 433–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Staley, K. W. (1996). “Novelty, severity, and history in the testing of hypotheses: the case of the top quark.” Philosophy of Science 63 (Supplement): S248–S255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zik, Y. (1999). “Galileo and the telescope: the status of theoretical and practical knowledge and techniques of measurement and experimentation in the development of the instrument.” Nuncius 2: 31–67.Google Scholar
  24. Zik, Y. (2001). “Science and instruments: the telescope as a scientific instrument at the beginning of the seventeenth century.” Perspectives on Science 9: 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giora Hon
    • 1
  • Jutta Schickore
  • Friedrich Steinle
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of HaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations