Science-The Experimental Test

  • Martin Goldstein
  • Inge Goldstein


The feature that distinguishes science from other ways of understanding and explaining the world is an ultimate reliance on the authority of the experimental test. There must be some agreed-on way of determining which facts are relevant to the credibility of our theories, and a willingness to place our theories at hazard in the process.


Hearing Loss Caloric Theory Lunar Eclipse Stereo Headphone Miss Control Group 
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.

Reference Notes

  1. 1.
    St. Augustine, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1961). Copyright 1961 by R. S. Pine-Coffin. Reprinted by permission of Penguin Books, Ltd.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gerald J. Holton, Introduction to Concepts and Theories in Physical Science, 2nd ed. (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1973).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Francisco Redi, Experiments on the Generation of Insects, trans. Mab Bigelow (Millwood, N.Y.: Kraus Reprint, no date).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Herbert Butterfield, Origins of Modern Science 1300–1800 (New York: Free Press, 1965).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Theodore Mehlin and Charles A. Schwieghauser, Astronomy and the Origin of the Earth, 3rd ed. (Dubuque: William C. Brown, 1979).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. V. Quine and J. S. Ullian, The Web of Belief 2nd ed. (New York: Random House, 1978).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karl R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (New York: Harper and Row, 1968).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Francis Bacon, The New Organon and Related Writings, ed. Fulton H. Anderson (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1960).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (New York: Harper Torchbooks, Harper and Row, 1965).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Terris, ed., Goldberger on Pellagra (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1964).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caroline Spurgeon, Shakespeare’s Imagery and What It Tells Us (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arthur M. Eastman, A Short History of Shakespearean Criticism (New York: W. W. Norton, 1974).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Samuel Schoenbaum, Shakespeare’s Lives (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    New York Times, 16 March, 1979. © 1979 by The New York Times Company. Reprinted by permission.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alfred Kazin, Contemporaries, from the Nineteenth Century to the Present (Boston: Little, Brown, 1962).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    New York Times, 17 July, 1982. © 1982 by The New York Times Company. Reprinted by permission.Google Scholar

Suggested Reading

  1. On the question whether scholarly research in the humanities is like scientific research, the reader is referred to the article by Isaiah Berlin, “The Concept of Scientific History,” in History and Theory 1 (1960), for a negative view. The Modern Researcher by Jacques Barzun and Henry F. Graff (3rd ed., New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977) is a guide to research in history. It does not make any claim that history is a science, but the reader is free to compare the methods of historical research described there with those of science, and come to his or her own conclusion. Another example of a work of literary scholarship which brings out the parallels between scholarly and scientific research is John Livingston Lowes’s The Road to Xanadu: A Study in the Ways of the Imagination (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1927).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Goldstein
    • 1
  • Inge Goldstein
    • 2
  1. 1.Yeshiva UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations