Advertisement

Robustness of Results and Robustness of Derivations: The Internal Architecture of a Solid Experimental Proof

  • Léna SolerEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 292)

Abstract

According to Wimsatt’s definition, the robustness of a result is due to its being derivable from multiple, partially independent methods, and increases with the number of such methods. In the case of the experimental sciences, the multiple methods will amount to different types of experiments. But clearly, this holds only if the convergent derivations involved are genuine arguments, that is, if each of them can be considered as sufficiently reliable or solid. Thus, the issue of the robustness of results inevitably leads to a reflection on the solidity of methods. What is, then, that makes a method, and in particular an experimental procedure solid? Despite the possible worries of circularity, part of the answer lies, without doubt, in a sort of reversed formulation of Wimsatt’s definition: the solidity of a method will increase with the number of independent results, previously established as robust, that it will enable to be derived. But this seems to be only a part of the answer. Intuitively at least, it is expected that the solidity of a method could also be linked to specific properties of this method, to features that are more ‘intrinsic’ than the results it allows to derive. In this chapter, I try to probe into the nature of these ‘intrinsic’ characters, through a discussion of an example connected to the discovery of weak neutral currents in particle physics. More precisely, the method that will be investigated is an experimental procedure developed at the beginning of the 1970s, which uses a giant bubble chamber named Gargamelle, and which is commonly believed to have contributed to establishing the existence of weak neutral currents. I analyze the content of the Gargamelle experimental ‘proof’ and bring to light its internal architecture. Then I examine the relations between this architecture and the wimsattian scheme of invariance under multiple determinations. Thereafter, I specify this scheme, and draw some general conclusions about the solidity of methods and results. Finally, some implications with respect to the issues of scientific realism and the contingency of scientific results are sketched.

Keywords

Visible Track Elementary Scheme Bubble Chamber Modular Unit Visual Argument 
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

I am especially indebted to Emiliano Trizio for multiple helpful feedbacks and extended discussions about the claims of this chapter. I am also grateful to Cathy Dufour, Thomas Nickles and Jacob Stegenga for their useful comments. Finally, many thanks to T. Nickles, J. Stegenga and E. Trizio for their corrections and suggestions of improvement concerning the English language. The end result is, of course, my own responsibility!

References

  1. Allamel-Raffin, Catherine. 2005. “De l’intersubjectivité à l’interinstrumentalité. L’exemple de la physique des surfaces.” Philosophia Scientiae 9(1):3–31.Google Scholar
  2. Bachelard, Gaston. 1927. Essai sur la connaissance approchée. Vrin; 6th ed., 1987.Google Scholar
  3. Benvenutti, A. 1974. “Observation of Muonless Neutrino-Induced Inelastic Interactions.” Physical Review Letters 32(14):800–3.Google Scholar
  4. Buchwald, Jed Z. 2006. “Discrepant Measurements and Experimental Knowledge in the Early Modern Era.” Archives for History of Exact Sciences 61:1–85.Google Scholar
  5. Galison, Peter. 1983. “How the First Neutral-Current Experiments Ended.” Review of Modern Physics 55(2):477–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Galison, Peter. 1997. Image and Logic, A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hacking, Ian. 1990. The Taming of Chance (Ideas in Context). Paperback.Google Scholar
  8. Hacking, Ian. 1992. “The Self-Vindication of the Laboratory Sciences.” In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by A. Pickering, 29–64. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hacking, Ian. 1999. The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hacking, Ian. 2000. “How Inevitable are the Results of Successful Science?” Philosophy of Science 67:58–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hasert, F.J. et al. 1973a. “Search for Elastic Muon-Neutrino Electron Scattering.” Physical Letters 46B:121–4.Google Scholar
  12. Hasert, F.J. et al. 1973b. “Observation of Neutrino-Like Interactions Without Muon or Electron in the Gargamelle Neutrino Experiment.” Physical Letters 46B:138–40.Google Scholar
  13. Hasert, F.J. et al. 1974. “Observation of Neutrino-Like Interactions Without Muon or Electron in the Gargamelle Neutrino Experiment.” Nuclear Physics B 73:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kuhn, Thomas. 1973. “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice.” In The Essential Tension, Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, 320–39. The University of Chicago Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  16. Pickering, A. 1984. Constructing Quarks, a Sociological History of Particle Physics. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Rousset, André. 1996. Gargamelle et les Courants Neutres, Témoignage Sur Une Découverte Scientifique. Presses de l’Ecole des Mines de Paris.Google Scholar
  18. Soler, Léna. 2008a. “Are the Results of Our Science Contingent or Inevitable? Introduction of a Symposium Devoted to the Contingency Issue.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 39:221–29.Google Scholar
  19. Soler, Léna. 2008b. “Revealing the Analytical Structure and Some Intrinsic Major Difficulties of the Contingentist/Inevitabilist Issue.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 39:230–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Soler, Léna. 2008c. “The Incommensurability of Experimental Practices: The Incommensurability of What? An Incommensurability of the third-type?” In Rethinking Scientific Change and Theory Comparison. Stabilities, Ruptures, Incommensurabilities? edited by L. Soler, H. Sankey, and P. Hoyningen, 299–340. Springer, Boston Studies for Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
  21. Soler, Léna. 2011. “Tacit Aspects of Experimental Practices: Analytical Tools and Epistemological Consequences.” European Journal for the Philosophy of Science (EJPS) 1(3):394–433 (Spécial issue directed by the Society for Philosophy of Science in Practice, Mieke Boon, Hasok Chang, Rachel Ankeny et Marcel Boumans).Google Scholar
  22. Soler, Léna. 201X. “A General Structural Argument in Favor of the Contingency of Scientific Results.” In Science as it Could Have Been. Discussing the Contingent/Inevitable Aspects of Scientific Practices, edited by Léna Soler, Emiliano Trizio, and Andrew Pickering. In progress.Google Scholar
  23. Wimsatt, William. 1981. “Robustness, Reliability and Overdetermination.” In Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences, edited by M.B. Brewer and B.E. Collins, 125–63. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Reprinted in Re-Engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings, Piecewise Approximations to Reality, 43–71. Cambridge, MA, and London, England: Harvard University Press, 2007. Reprinted in this volume, Chapter 2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Archives H. Poincaré, Laboratoire d’Histoire des Sciences et de PhilosophieUMR 7117 CNRSNancyFrance

Personalised recommendations