Science and Realism: The Legacy of Duhem and Meyerson in Contemporary American Philosophy of Science

  • Sandra Laugier
Part of the Boston Studies In The Philosophy Of Science book series (BSPS, volume 276)

Anglo-American epistemology has long recognized its debt to Pierre Duhem: most notably in the so-called “Duhem–Quine” thesis that has been at the center of debates over empiricism and realism. These debates began with the Vienna Circle and have continued through the development of a more historical reflection on the sciences. This development is still ongoing, as can be seen in Hilary Putnam’s work on realism. The most prominent figures in this movement of inheritance of Duhem’s work, as well as the most controversial, are Kuhn and Feyerabend. But this change in American philosophy of science since, say, the sixties may also draw our attention to another influence, less visible than Duhem’s, but just as important: that of Emile Meyerson. One finds references to Meyerson in writings by both Quine and Kuhn. Kuhn, in particular, has explicitly recognized his debt to the author of Identity and Reality. In an interview in the French newspaper Le Monde, 1 he noted that he had, in philosophy, three major influences, apart from his contemporary, Quine: Duhem (for his Aim and Structure of Physical Theory), Meyerson (for Identity and Reality), and Koyré, who was responsible for the direct transmission of Meyerson’s work to the U.S. Kuhn also recalled that it was Popper himself who advised him to read Identity and Reality, a work that proved decisive for Kuhn.

Keywords

Europe Mold Assure Posit Stein 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Bitbol, Michel et Gayon, Jean (2006), L’Épistémologie française, 1830–1970, Paris, PUF. 2006.Google Scholar
  2. Brenner, Anastasios (1990), Duhem : science, réalité et apparence. La relation entre philosophie et histoire dans l’oeuvre de Pierre Duhem, Paris, Vrin, »Mathesis«.Google Scholar
  3. Brenner, Anastasios (2003), les origines françaises de la philosophie des sciences, Paris, PUF. Google Scholar
  4. Carnap Rudolf (1934), Logische Syntax der Sprache; The Logical Syntax of Language, transl. Amethe Smeaton, London, Kegan Paul, 1937.Google Scholar
  5. Duhem Pierre (1903), L’Évolution de la mécanique, Paris, Vrin, 1992; The Evolution of Mechanics, transl. M. Cole, Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff and Noordhoff, 1980.Google Scholar
  6. Duhem Pierre (1906), La Théorie physique, son objet et sa structure, Paris, Vrin, 1981; The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, transl. P. Wiener, Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  7. Duhem Pierre (1905–1906), Les origines de la statique, 2 vol., Paris, Hermann. The Origins of Statics, transl. G.F. Leneaux et al., Kluwer, 1981.Google Scholar
  8. Duhem Pierre (1908), Sauver les phénomènes. Essai sur la notion de théorie physique de Platon à Galilée, Paris Vrin, 1982. To Save the Phenomena, transl. E. Doland and C. Maschler, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  9. Duhem Pierre (1913–1959), Le système du monde. Histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic, 10 vol., Paris, Hermann; Medieval Cosmology, partial transl. Roger. Ariew, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  10. Duhem Pierre (1915), La science allemande, Paris, Hermann; German Science, transl. J. Lyon, La Salle, Open Court, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. Duhem Pierre (1997), L’aube du savoir: épitomé du Système du monde, A. Brenner, (ed.), Paris, Hermann.Google Scholar
  12. Einstein Albert (1987), Collected Papers, vol. 2, Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fine Arthur (1986), The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory, 2nd ed., Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. Hacking Ian (1983), Representing and Intervening, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Holton Gerald (1968), “Mach, Einstein and the Search for Reality”, Daedalus, 97, pp. 637–673.Google Scholar
  16. Koyré Alexandre (1931), “Die Philosophie Emile Meyerson”, Deutsch-Franzôsische Rundschau, 4, pp. 197–217.Google Scholar
  17. Koyré Alexandre (1926), “Compte rendu de La Scolastique et le thomisme” par L. Rougier, Gauthier Villars, 1925, Revue philosophique, 1926, pp. 462–468.Google Scholar
  18. Kuhn Thomas (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kuhn Thomas (1977), The Essential Tension, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kuhn Thomas (2000), The Road since Structure, James Conant and John Haugeland (eds.), Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lakatos Imre (1995), “The methodology of scientific research programmes”, Philosophical papers, volume I, edited by John Worrall and Gregory Currie, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lakatos Imre, Alan Musgrave (eds.), (1970), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Laugier Sandra (1992), L’anthropologie logique de Quine, Paris, Vrin.Google Scholar
  24. Laugier Sandra (2003) (ed.), “Après la Structure – Kuhn, les révolutions scientifiques et l’incommensurabilité”, Archives de Philosophie.Google Scholar
  25. Lévy-Bruhl Lucien (1949), Les Carnets, Paris, Presses universitaires de France; The Notebooks on Primitive Mentality, transl. Peter Rivière, New York, Harper and Row, 1975.Google Scholar
  26. Quine Willard Van Orman (1960), Word and Object, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Quine Willard Van Orman (1961), From a Logical Point of View, 2nd ed., Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Quine Willard Van Orman (1969), Ontological Relativity, New York, Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Quine Willard Van Orman (1981), Theories and Things, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Quine Willard Van Orman (1982), Methods of Logic, 4th ed., Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Quine Willard Van Orman (1995), “Naturalism; Or, Living Within One’s Means”, Dialectica 49/2, 251–261.Google Scholar
  32. Metzger Hélène (1930), “La philosophie de Lévy-Bruhl et l’histoire des sciences”, Archeion, 12, pp. 15–24.Google Scholar
  33. Meyerson Émile (1908), Identité et réalité, Paris, Vrin, 1951; Identity and Reality, London, George Allen and Unwin, 1930.Google Scholar
  34. Meyerson Émile (1921), De l’explication dans les sciences, 2 vols, Paris, Payot; transl. Explanation in the Sciences, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1991.Google Scholar
  35. Meyerson Émile (1923), “Hegel, Hamilton, Hamelin et le concept de cause”, Revue philosophique, 96, pp. 33–55.Google Scholar
  36. Meyerson Émile (1925), La Déduction relativiste, Paris, Payot; transl. The Relativist Deduction: Epistemologival Implications of the Theory of Relattivity, Dordrecht, Reidel, 1985.Google Scholar
  37. Meyerson Émile (1931), Le Cheminement de la pensée, Paris, Alcan.Google Scholar
  38. Meyerson Émile (1933), Réel et déterminisme dans la physique quantique, Paris, Hermann, “Actualités scientifiques et industrielles”.Google Scholar
  39. Rougier Louis (1925), La Scolastique et le thomisme, Paris, Gautier Villars.Google Scholar
  40. Schlick Moritz (1979), Philosophical Papers, Henk L. Mulder and Barbara F.B. Van de Velde- Schlick (eds.), transl. Peter Heath, 2 vol., Dordrecht, Reidel.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra Laugier
    • 1
  1. 1.Département de philosophieUniversité Picardie Jules VerneAmiensFrance

Personalised recommendations