Advertisement

Rationality in Flux – Formal Representations of Methodological Change

  • Jonas NilssonEmail author
  • Sten Lindström
Chapter
  • 604 Downloads
Part of the Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science book series (LEUS, volume 21)

Abstract

A central aim for philosophers of science has been to understand scientific theory change, or more specifically the rationality of theory change. Philosophers and historians of science have suggested that not only theories but also scientific methods and standards of rational inquiry have changed through the history of science. The topic here is methodological change, and what kind of theory of rational methodological change is appropriate. The modest ambition of this paper is to discuss in what ways results in formal theories of belief revision can throw light on the question of what an appropriate theory of methodological change would look like.

Keywords

Rationality Standard Methodological State Belief Revision Belief Change Empirical Adequacy 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Swedish Research Council (VR), the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study (SCAS) and Umeå University.

References

  1. Alchourrón, C., P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson. 1985. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 50:510–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bratman, M. 1987. Intentions, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bratman, M. 1999. Faces of intention: Selected essays on intention and agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Briskman, L. 1977. Historicist relativism and bootstrap rationality. The Monist 60:509–539.Google Scholar
  5. Broome, J. 2007. Requirements. In Hommage à Wlodek: Philosophical papers dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowicz, eds. Toni Rønnow-Rasmussen, Björn Petersson, Jonas Josefsson, and Dan Egonsson. http://http//www.fil.lu.se/hommageawlodek/site/papper/BroomeJohn.pdf Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
  6. Laudan, L. 1984. Science and values: The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Laudan, L. 1996. Beyond positivism and relativism: Theory, method, and evidence. Oxford: Westview.Google Scholar
  8. Newton-Smith, W. 1981. The rationality of science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  9. Niiniluoto, I. 1999. Critical scientific realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Nilsson, J. 2000. Rationality in inquiry: On the revisability of cognitive standards. Ph.D. dissertation, Umeå University.Google Scholar
  11. Nilsson, J. 2005. A bootstrap theory of rationality. Theoria 71:182–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Popper, K.R. 1989. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge, 5th revised and corrected ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Shapere, D. 1984. Reason and the search for knowledge: Investigations in the philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  14. Worrall, J. 1982. Broken bootstraps. Erkenntnis 18:105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Worrall, J. 1988. The value of a fixed methodology. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39:263–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Worrall, J. 1989. Fix it and be damned: A reply to Laudan. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40:376–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of HistoricalPhilosophical and Religious Studies, Umeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations