Advertisement

Two Kinds of Case Study and a New Agreement

  • Allan FranklinEmail author
  • Harry Collins
Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science book series (BSPS, volume 319)

Abstract

The debate between Collins and Franklin over the demise of the credibility of Joseph Weber’s gravitational wave claims has been treated as an iconic case of conflict over rival interpretations of the history of science (see, for example, Kinzel, this volume). Collins conducted contemporaneous interviews with the scientists and argued that the existence of the experimenter’s regress meant that scientists who generated results that conflicted with Weber were not forced to claim that he was wrong—a possible interpretation was that the critics’ experiments were less sound than Weber’s. Collins argued that the crucial intervention was made by a scientist whose rhetoric encouraged everyone to interpret Weber’s results, rather than their own, as flawed. Franklin drew largely on published sources and claimed that the accumulation of negative results was the inevitable outcome of rational processes. Collins and Franklin still disagree strongly about method and interpretation but the interesting thing discussed here is that, for them, the violence has gone out of the debate. In the early days they found themselves insulting each other but nowadays they find themselves cooperating in joint enterprises. This change reflects a change in the history of science: nowadays it is impossible to believe that there is no social component involved in the acceptance of scientific results so the disagreement between Franklin and Collins is no longer over deep epistemological principle but over methodological approach and their views concerning the intentions of different historical actors. This is the stuff of normal disagreement between historians rather than mutual incomprehension born of incommensurable approaches. The change in the tenor of the debate is a consequence of the fact that a revolution in historiography has taken place.

Keywords

Gravity Wave Gravitational Wave Gravitational Radiation Delay Excess Laboratory Notebook 
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.

References

  1. Collins, H.M. 1975. The seven sexes: A study in the sociology of a phenomenon, or the replication of experiments in physics. Sociology 9(2): 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Collins, H.M. 1981a. Son of the seven sexes: The social destruction of a physical phenomenon. Social Studies of Science 11: 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Collins, H.M. 1981b. Stages in the empirical programme of relativism. Social Studies of Science 11: 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collins, H.M. 1981c. What is TRASP: The radical programme as a methodological imperative. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11: 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, H.M. 1985. Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. Beverley Hills and London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, H.M. 1992. Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1st ed. 1985).Google Scholar
  7. Collins, H.M. 2004. Gravity’s shadow. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins, H.M. 2009. Walking the talk: Doing gravity’s shadow. In Ethnographies revisited: Conceptual reflections from the field, ed. A. Puddephatt, W. Shaffir, and S.W. Kleinknecht, 289–304. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, H.M. 2011. Gravity’s ghost. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Paperback edition included in Collins 2013.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, H.M. 2013. Gravity’s ghost and big dog. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins, H.M., and R. Evans. 2002. The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science 32(2): 235–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins, H.M., and R. Evans. 2007. Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collins, H.M., and T. Pinch. 1998. The golem: What you should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Conan Doyle, A. 1967. The annotated Sherlock Holmes. New York: Clarkson N. Potter.Google Scholar
  15. Franklin, A. 1990. Experiment, right or wrong. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Franklin, A. 1994. How to avoid experimenters’ regress. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 25(463–491).Google Scholar
  17. Franklin, A. 1997. Calibration. Perspective on Science 5(31–80).Google Scholar
  18. Franklin, A. 1998. Avoiding the experimenters’ regress. In A house built on sand: Exposing postmodernist myths about science, ed. N. Koertge, 151–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Franklin, A. 2002. Selectivity and discord. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Franklin, A. 2007. The role of experiments in the natural sciences: Examples from physics and biology. In Handbook of the philosophy of science: general philosophy of science: Focal issues, ed. T. Kuipers, 219–274. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  21. Franklin, A. 2010. Gravity waves and neutrinos: The later work of Joseph Weber. Perspectives on Science 18: 119–151.Google Scholar
  22. Franklin, A. 2013. Shifting standards: Experiments in particle physics in the twentieth century. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  23. Galison, P. 1987. How experiments end. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Garwin, R. 1974. Detection of gravity waves challenged. Physics Today 27: 9–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Giles, J. 2006. Sociologist fools physics judges. Nature 442: 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kennefick, D. 2007. Travelling at the speed of thought: Einstein and the quest for gravitational waves. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kennefick, D. 2014. Relativistic lighthouses: The role of the binary pulsar in proving the existence of gravitational waves. arXiv:1407.2164.
  28. Levine, J. 2004. Early gravity-wave detection experiments, 1960–1975. Physics in Perspective 6(42–75).Google Scholar
  29. Levine, J., and R. Garwin. 1974. New negative result for gravitational wave detection and comparison with reported detection. Physical Review Letters 33: 794–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Medawar, P.B. 1964. Is the scientific paper a fraud? In Experiment: A series of scientific case histories, ed. D. Edge, 7–13. London: BBC. First Broadcast in the BBC Third Programme.Google Scholar
  31. Pickering, A. 1984. Against putting the phenomena first: The discovery of the weak neutral current. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 15(85–117).Google Scholar
  32. Pinch, T. 1986. Confronting nature. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shapere, D. 1982. The concept of observation in science and philosophy. Philosophy of Science 49: 485–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shapin, S. 1984. Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle’s literary technology. Social Studies of Science 14(4): 481–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shaviv, G., and J. Rosen (eds.). 1975. General relativity and gravitation: Proceedings of the seventh international conference (GR7), Tel-Aviv University, June 23–28, 1974. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Stoppard, T. 1967. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
  37. Weber, J., M. Lee, D. Gretz, G. Rydbeck, V. Trimble, and S. Steppel. 1973. New gravitational radiation experiments. Physical Review Letters 31(12): 779–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Distinguished Research Professor of SociologyCardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations