Advertisement

Anticipations of Progress: Historical Evidence for a Realist Epistemology

  • Kenneth Goodman
Chapter
  • 130 Downloads
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 236)

Abstract

The history of science presents many examples of hypotheses and theories that were either rejected or ignored at the time of their initial publication, but which later—sometimes much later—come to be widely accepted and, especially, were seen to be true.1

Keywords

Simultaneous Discovery True Belief Historical Evidence Scientific Revolution Scientific Change 
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.

References

  1. Africa, T.W.: 1961, ‘Copernicus’ Relation to Aristarchus and Pythagoras’, Isis 52, 403–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boring, E.: 1927: ‘The Problem of Originality in Science’, American Journal of Psychology 39, 70–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, H.: 1990, ‘Prospective Realism’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 21, 211–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Churchland, P.: 1985, ‘The Ontological Status of Observables: In Praise of the Superempirical Virtues’, in P.M. Churchland and C.A. Hooker, ed-s., Images of Science: Essays on Realism and Empiricism, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 35–47.Google Scholar
  5. Davidson, D.: 1984, ‘Thought and Talk’, in Essays into Truth él Interpretation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. Diamond, J.M.: 1987, ‘Aristotle’s Theory of Mammalian Teat Number is Confirmed’, Nature 325, 200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duhem, P.: 1962, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, Atheneum, New York (reprint of Princeton University Press, 1954 ).Google Scholar
  8. Dreyer, J.L.E.: 1953, A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler, Dover, New York (reprint of Cambridge University Press, 1906 ).Google Scholar
  9. Erhardt, R. von and E. von Erhardt-Siebold.: 1941, ‘Archimedes’ Sand-Reckoner’, Isis 33, 578–602.Google Scholar
  10. Funkenstein, A.: 1975, ‘The Dialectical Preparation for Scientific Revolutions’, in R.S. Westman, ed., The Copernican Achievement, University of California Press, Berkeley, 165–203.Google Scholar
  11. Gingerich, O.: 1985, ‘Did Copernicus Owe a Debt to Aristarchus?’ Journal for the History of Astronomy 16, 37–42.Google Scholar
  12. Heath, T.: 1981, Aristarchus of Samos: The Ancient Copernicus, Dover, New York (reprint of Oxford University Press, 1913 ).Google Scholar
  13. Heath, T., ed.: No date, ‘The Sand-Reckoner’, in The Works of Archimedes, Dover, New York (reprint of Cambridge University Press, 1897 ).Google Scholar
  14. Kuhn, T.: 1957, The Copernican Revolution, Vintage, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Kuhn, T.: 1959, ‘Energy Conservation as an Example of Simultaneous Discovery’, in M. Clagett, ed., Critical Problems in the History of Science, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 321–356.Google Scholar
  16. Kuhn, T.: 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  17. Lakatos, I. and E. Zahar.: 1975, ‘Why Did Copernicus’ Research Program Supersede Ptolemy’s?’ in R.S. Westman, ed., The Copernican Achievement, University of California Press, Berkeley, 354–383.Google Scholar
  18. Laudan, L.: 1984, ‘A Confutation of Convergent Realism’, in J. Leplin, ed., Scientific Realism, University of California Press, Berkeley, 218–249.Google Scholar
  19. Levin, M.: 1979, ‘On Theory-Change and Meaning-Change’, Philosophy of Science 46, 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Merton, R.: 1957, ‘Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science’, American Sociological Review 22, 635–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Merton, R.: 1961, ‘Singletons and Multiples in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 105, 470–486.Google Scholar
  22. Merton, R.: 1963, ‘Resistance to the Systematic Study of Multiple Discoveries in Science’, Archive of European Sociology 4, 237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ogburn, W. and D. Thomas.: 1922, ‘Are Inventions Inevitable? A Note on Social Evolution’, Political Science Quarterly 37, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosen, E.: 1978, ‘Aristarchus of Samos and Copernicus’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 15, 85–93.Google Scholar
  25. Sarton, G.: 1954, The Study of the History of Science, Dover, New York (reprint of Harvard University Press, 1936 ).Google Scholar
  26. Smith, R.W.: 1989, ‘The Cambridge Network in Action: The Discovery of Neptune’, Isis 80 395–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stahl, W.H.: 1970, ‘Aristarchus of Samos’, Dictionary of Scientific Biography Vol. 1, Scribner’s, New York, 246–250Google Scholar
  28. Wall, B.: 1975, ‘Anatomy of a Precursor: The Historiography of Aristarchus of Samos’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 6, 201–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth Goodman
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations