Theory-Ladenness of Observations as as Test Case of Kuhn’s Approach to Scientific Inquiry

  • Jaakko Hintikka
Part of the Jaakko Hintikka Selected Papers book series (HISP, volume 5)


The overall character of the ideas Thomas S. Kuhn has offered concerning the nature of scientific inquiry has been generally misunderstood, or, rather, misconstrued. (See Kuhn 1957, 1970.) Kuhn’s ideas do not add up to a fully articulated analysis of the structure of the scientific process. Kuhn does not offer a theory of science which should be evaluated in the same way as, e.g., the hypothetico-deductive model of science or the inductivist one. What Kuhn does is best viewed as calling our attention to certain salient phenomena which a philosophical theorist of science must try to understand and to account for. We do injustice to Kuhn if we deal with his views as if they were finished products of philosophical theorizing. They are not. Rather, they are starting-points for such theorizing;, they pose problems to be solved by a genuine theory of science.


Scientific Revolution Operational Answer Heavenly Body Interrogative Model Copernican Revolution 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Earman, J. (1977), “Theory-Change as Structure Change”, in Historical and Philosophical Dimensions of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, R.E. Butts and J. Hintikka (eds.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 289–309.Google Scholar
  2. Franklin, A. (1986), The Neglect of Experiment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Franklin, A. (1990), Experiment, Right or Wrong. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Galison, P. (1987), How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Glymour, C. (1980), Theory and Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Gooding, D. (1990), Experiment and the Making of Meaning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grant, E. (1962), “Late Medieval Thought, Copernicus and the Scientific Revolution”, Journal of the History of Ideas 23: 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grant, E. (1991), “Celestial Incorruptibility in Medieval Cosmology 1200–1687”, in Physics, Cosmology and Astronomy1300–1700, S. Unguru, (ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 101–27.Google Scholar
  9. Gregory, R.L. (1970), The Intelligent Eye. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  10. Hacking, I. (1981), Scientific Revolutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hanson, N.R. (1958), Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hintikka, J. (1988a), “On the Incommensurability of Theories”, Philosophy of Science 55: 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hintikka, J. (1988b), “What is the Logic of Experimental Inquiry?”, Synthese 74: 173–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hintikka, J. (1991), “Toward a General Theory of Identifiability”, in Definitions and Definability, J.H. Fetzer, D. Shatz and G. Schlesinger, (eds.) . Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 161–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hintikka, J. (1992), “The Concept of Induction in the Light of the Interrogative Approach to Inquiry”, in Inference, Explanation and Other Philosophical Frustrations, John Eannan (ed.). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  16. Hintikka, J. and Garrison, J.W. (forthcoming), “Newton’s Methodology and the Interrogative Logic of Experimental Inquiry”, in Science in Context. Google Scholar
  17. Kuhn, T.S. (1957), The Copernican Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kuhn, T.S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed., enlarged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Rantala, V. (1977), Aspects of Definability. Helsinki: Societas Philosophica Fennica.Google Scholar
  20. Rock, I. (1983), The Logic of Perception. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaakko Hintikka
    • 1
  1. 1.Boston UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations