Skip to main content

Four Other Major Philosophers of Science

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Clinical Psychology and the Philosophy of Science
  • 3357 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, we will provide a brief overview of four other major philosophers of science: Paul Feyerabend, Imre Lakatos, Larry Laudan, and Alan Gross. Each of these philosophers’ work has been impactful and the reader must have some acquaintance with this literature if they are to be conversant in the contemporary meta-scientific literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allison, J., & Timberlake, W. (1975). Response deprivation and instrumental performance in the controlled amount paradigm. Learning and Motivation, 6, 122–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method: An outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. New York: New Left Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, A. G. (1990). Reinventing certainty: The significance of Ian Hacking’s Realism. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (pp. 421–431). Volume One: Contributed Papers (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • Houts, A.C. (2009). Reformed theology is a resource for conflicts between psychology and religious faith. In N. Cummings, W. O’Donohue & J. Cummings (Eds.), Psychology’s War on religion. (Phoenix: Zeig, Tucker, and Theissen).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luks, F. (1999). Post-normal science and the rhetoric of inquiry: Deconstruction normal science? Futures, 31(7), 705–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donohue, W. (1989). The (even) bolder model: The clinical psychologist as metaphysician-scientist-practitioner. American Psychologist, 44(12), 1460–1468.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. V. O., & Ullian, J. S. (1978). The web of belief. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1955). A case history in scientific method. American Psychologist, 11, 221–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. (1986). Behaviorism and logical positivism: A reassessment of the alliance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson (2003). In Defence of Feyerabend. Retrieved from http://www.nutters.org/docs/Feyerabend.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William O’Donohue .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

O’Donohue, W. (2013). Four Other Major Philosophers of Science. In: Clinical Psychology and the Philosophy of Science. Springer, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00185-2_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics