Advertisement

Consequences and Alternative Methodologies

  • G. L. Pandit
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 73)

Abstract

If my arguments (in Chapters 2 and 3) concerning the epistemic/developmental structures of our knowledge and its growth have followed any pattern at all, then these must now be developed further according to my thesis (in Chapter 3) that a sound methodological model of epistemic appraisal must be embedded in a sound model of epistemic structure, the latter entailing the former. It is possible to do this in more precise terms once it is clear that there is an intimate connection between the two problems of epistemic structure and epistemic appraisal. So intimate is the connection indeed that TE and the current methodologies, which are a variation on the former, treat them as a single problem. This is the familiar, but currently controversial, problem of the unit of scientific appraisal. This fact may explain why there is no explicit discussion of any such thing as what I call the problem of epistemic structure. But the complexity of the problem is revealed only if we realize that every methodology of epistemic appraisal must be embedded in a corresponding theory of the epistemic structure.

Keywords

Scientific Revolution Normal Science Radical Translation Alternative Methodology Scientific Research Programme 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. 1.
    P. Duhem (1954), p. 187 (Translated from the original French, 2nd ed. of 1914 by P. P. Wiener).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. W. Swanson (1967), p. 59.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    See Mario Bunge (1973), p. 195.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    This example is from H. Feigl (1971), p. 149.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    For details see discussion by Karl Popper (1968), pp. 78–81.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ernan McMullin (1976), pp. 422–423. For his distinction between the ‘proven fertility’ (P-fertility) and ‘untested fertility’ (U-fertility), see ibid., p. 400.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ibid., pp. 423–424.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ibid., p. 424.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    William Berkson (1976), p. 53.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    I. Lakatos (1971a), p. 99.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Cf. Noretta Koertge (1971), p. 161.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    I. Lakatos, (1971a), p. 100. Lakatos (1971b), p. 174, says that “… my ‘methodology’… only appraises fully articulated theories (or research programmes)…”Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    For T. S. Kuhn’s view, see his (1970a).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    See T. S. Kuhn (1971), pp. 138–39.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    According to I. Lakatos (1971a), p. 104, “One may rationally stick to a degenerating programme until it is overtaken by a rival and even after… It is perfectly rational to play a risky game: what is irrational is to deceive oneself about the risk.”Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    See T. S. Kuhn (1971), p. 139.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    I. Lakatos (1970b), p. 118, see also p. 119.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ibid., p. 118.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Ibid., p. 155, footnote 3.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ibid., p. 118, footnote 3.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    For Lakatos’ own admission to this effect cf. ibid., p. 109, footnote 2.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    The history of science,“ writes Lakatos ibid., p. 155), ”has been and should be a history of competing research programmes (or, if you wish, ‘paradigms’), but it has not been and must not become a succession of periods of normal science: the sooner competition starts, the better for progress. ‘Theoretical pluralism’ is better than ‘theoretical monism’: on this point Popper and Feyerabend are right and Kuhn is wrong.“Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    See I. Lakatos (1971b), p. 174.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    See T. S. Kuhn (1970a), pp. 35–42.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    T. S. Kuhn (1970b), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    T. S. Kuhn (1970b), p. 5, footnote 1.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    K. R. Popper (1972a), p. 222.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    See K. R. Popper (1972b), pp. 106–22.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cf. Wolfgang Stegmüller (1976), p. 138.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    K. R. Popper (1972a), p. 229.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    K. R. Popper, ibid., p. 233.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cf. ibid., p. 234. According to Popper (ibid., p. 235) “... even after t2 has been refuted in its turn, we can still say that it is better than t1, for although both have been shown to be false, the fact that t2 has withstood tests which t1 did not pass may be a good indication that the falsity-content of t1 exceeds that of t2 while its truth-content does not. Thus we may still give preference to t2, even after its falsification, because we have reason to think that it agrees better with the facts than did t1.”Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    In Kuhn’s words (1970a), p. 111: “paradigm changes do cause scientists to see the world of their research-engagement differently. In so far as their only recourse to that world is through what they see and do, we may want to say that after a revolution scientists are responding to a different world.”Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    In learning a paradigm,“ argues Kuhn (ibid., p. 109), ”the scientist acquires theory, methods, and standards together, usually in an inextricable mixture. Therefore, when paradigms change, there are usually significant shifts in the criteria determining the legitimacy both of problems and of proposed solutions.“Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ibid., p. 110.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kuhn (ibid., pp. 109–110) admits that “the choice between competing paradigms regularly raises questions that cannot be resolved by the criteria of normal science. To the extent... that two scientific schools disagree about what is a problem and what a solution, they will inevitably talk through each other when debating the relative merits of their respective paradigms. In the partially circular arguments that regularly result, each paradigm will be shown to satisfy more or less the criteria that it dictates for itself and to fall short of a few of those dictated by its opponent. There are other reasons, too, for the incompleteness of logical contact that consistently characterizes paradigm debates.”Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ibid., p. 150.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ibid., pp. 148–50.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    If there were but one set of scientific problems,“ writes Kuhn (ibid., pp. 147–48), ”one world within which to work on them, and one set of standards for their solution, paradigm competition might be settled more or less routinely by some process like counting the number of problems solved by each… The competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be resolved by proofs.“Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ibid., p. 151.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ibid., p. 158.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    For Kuhn (ibid., p. 110) writes: “Paradigm debates always involve the question: Which problems is it more significant to have solved? Like the issue of competing standards, that question of values can be answered only in terms of criteria that lie outside of normal science altogether, and it is that recourse to external criteria that most obviously makes paradigm debates revolutionary.”Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kuhn admits this as a matter of parallelism between the scientific and political revolutions. See Kuhn, ibid., p. 92.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    For example, Kuhn (ibid., p. 92) writes: “Scientific revolutions are here taken to be those non-cumulative developmental episodes in which an older paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible new one.” See also ibid., p. 96.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
  49. 49.
    See K. R. Popper (1975), P. 78.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    This is, e.g., true of Wolfgang Stegmüller (1976), pp. 12, 19, 137, 140, 142, 170–74, 177–80, 190, 265, 271. For Kuhn’s own reference to PI see Kuhn (1970a), pp. 44–45.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Peter Winch (1958), p. 89, writes: “... although the reflective student of society, or of a particular mode of social life, may find it necessary to use concepts which are not taken from the forms of activity which he is investigating, but which are taken rather from the context of his own investigation, still these technical concepts of his will imply a previous understanding of those other concepts which belong to the activities under investigation.” Again (ibid., p. 115): “Understanding, in situations like this, is grasping the point or meaning of what is being done or said. This is a notion far removed from the world of statistics and causal laws: it is closer to the realm of discourse and to the internal relations that link the parts of a realm of discourse.” See also pp. 41–44, 65, 86–88, 110, 119–20, 127–28, 132–35.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    The detailed arguments are developed in one of my unpublished papers on Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language. However, it should suffice here to point out that Wittgenstein’s theory of family resemblance (PI, 65–66) is best understood as a strong argument for the thesis that language-games’ and their underlying ‘forms of life’ must be comparable if either of these one-place predicates are to be applicable/not applicable to any new activity/situation. It is a certain kind of resemblance between what we take to be the paradigm cases of their application and what appear as new candidates for application that makes our decision possible this way or that way. This shows that Wittgenstein’s position in PI cannot be exploited by the incommensurability theorists for their own purpose. Moreover, any attempt to raise further higher-level issues, of the same kind that Wittgenstein raises concerning language, about words occurring in the formulation of his family resemblance theory will lead one nowhere except sophistry.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    P. K. Feyerabend’s views right from his (1965) to his more recent (1970b) have a closer affinity with Kuhn’s. In fact in the latter essay, he propounds the kind of view that follows only as an inevitable consequence of their common doctrine of incommensurability. This is the view that ‘anarchy’ is an excellent basis for epistemologyand the philosophy of science. For details concerning his view see also his (1970a) and (1976). For discussion on his views, see C. R. Kordig (1971); and Wolfgang Stegmüller (1976), pp. 260–69.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cf. Wolfgang Stegmüller, op. cit., p. 138.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    T. S. Kuhn (1971), p. 146.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Quine argues for this thesis in (1960), pp. 26–79.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    For the Whorf hypothesis, see B. L. Whorf (1952) and (1956).Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Following Quine, Martin Hollis (1973), pp. 39–49, concedes this point in the social science context. But while Quine’s position seems to allow for considerable latitude of choice in one’s selection of assumptions and hence the analytical hypotheses, Hollis makes them unoptional. Against Hollis it must be argued that if an anthropologist has to make assumptions before he proceeds, as any scientist must, then ideally there must be a whole range of assumptions to choose from. But if he cannot have a choice as to which assumption to make then he cannot make one.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    In the field of linguistic theory this is precisely the view of Noam Chomsky. See his (1964), (1965), (1976) and (1977), pp. 81, 163.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    If our present view developed here in the form of the thesis of the epistemic structure as a developmental structure of knowledge is acceptable as valid, there is no escape from its consequences. One of these has precisely to do with the falsifiability of scientific theories as a theoretical universal that remains invariant relative to scientific revolutions. Theoretical universals in the sense of this example set an unquestionable limit to the validity of any Kuhn-Feyerabend type doctrine of incommensurability.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. L. Pandit
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations