Abstract
This essay is written as a dialogue between a relativist and his critic. It does not focus on all species of relativism (e.g., I do not directly address here either ontological relativism, cultural relativism or moral relativism), but specifically on what might be called epistemic or cognitive relativism. I understand that view to amount to the claim that we are never warrantedly in a position to assert that any theory is objectively superior to another, or that the evidence and arguments in favor of one theory are stronger than those favoring any other. Although the form of relativism I am describing is perhaps most closely associated with Thomas Kuhn1 and Paul Feyerabend2 among philosophers of science, closely-related versions of it can be found in the writings of Mary Hesse,3 Willard Quine, Richard Rorty, Nelson Goodman,4 Gerald Doppelt,5 and sundry sociologists of knowledge.6 The dialogue takes literary license in imaginatively elaborating some of the argumentative details of the relativist’s position (in many cases, the relativists offer sloganistic hand-waving where argumentative fine-structure is called for). But I believe that all the major argument-types which I attribute to the relativist can be found in the writings of these authors.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Boyd, R. (1973) ‘Realism, Underdetermination and a Causal Theory of Reference’, Nous 7, 1–12.
Cartwright, N. (1983) How the Laws of Physics Lie, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Doppelt, G. (1978) ‘Kuhn’s Epistemological Relativism: An Interpretation and Defense’, Inquiry 21, 33–86.
Doppelt, G. (1986) ‘Relativism and the Reticulation Model of Scientific Rationality’, Synthese 69, 225–52.
Duhem, P. (1954) The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Feyerabend, P. (1975) Against Method, London, NLB.
Goodman, N. (1965) Fact, Fiction and Forecast, Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill.
Goodman, N. (1978) Ways of Worldmaking, Indianapolis, Hackett.
Hesse, M. (1981) Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science, Brighton, Harvester.
Kuhn, T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Second Edition), Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. (1977) The Essential Tension, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I. (1978) The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers Volume 1, edited by J. Worrall and G. Currie, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Laudan, L. (1981) Science and Hypothesis, Dordrecht, D. Reidel.
Laudan, L. (1983) ‘The Demise of the Demarcation Problem’, in L. Laudan and R. Cohen (eds.), Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis, Dordrecht, D. Reidel, 111–28.
Laudan, L. (1984) Science and Values, Berkeley, Umversity of California Press.
Newton-Smith, W. (1978). ‘The Underdetermination of Theories by Data’, Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume LII, 71–91.
Popper, K. (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London, Hutchinson.
Reichenbach, H. (1938) Experience and Prediction, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1988 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Laudan, L. (1988). Are All Theories Equally Good? A Dialogue. In: Nola, R. (eds) Relativism and Realism in Science. Australasian Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2877-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2877-0_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7795-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-2877-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive