Abstract
»One of the most wonderful features of reasoning» is its tendency »to correct itself, and the more so the more wisely its plan is laid». These words from the 1898 essay ’Methods for Attaining the Truth’ summarize Charles Peirce’s vision of science as a »self-corrective process»1 — which still is one of the most pertinent attempts to characterize science and the scientific method. It helps us to clarify the sense in which features such as objectivity, critical attitude, autonomy, and progress belong to the nature of science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
Campbell, N., What is Science?,Methuen, London, 1921. (Dover, New York, 1952.)
Feyerabend, P., Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, New Left Books, London, 1975.
Feyerabend, P., ’Dialogue on Method’, in G. Radnitzky and G. Andersson (eds.), The Structure and Development of Science, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979, pp. 63–131.
Gardner, M., Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. The Curious Theories of Modern Pseudoscientists and the Strange, Amusing and Alarming Cults that Surround Them. A Study in Human Gulligibility, Dover, New York, 1957. Grim, P. (ed.), Philosophy of Science and the Occult, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1982.
Grim, P. (ed.), Philosophy of Science and the Occult, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1982.
Kemeny, J., A Philosopher Looks at Science, Van Nostrand, New York, 1959.
Kuhn, T.S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962. (2nd ed. 1970.)
Laudan, L., ’Commentary: Science at the Bar — Causes for Concern’, Science, Technology & Human Values7 (1982), pp. 16–19.
Laudan, L., ’The Demise of the Demarcation Problem’, in R.J. Cohen and L. Laudan (eds.), Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1983, pp. 111–127.
Levi, I., Gambling with Truth,Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1967. (2nd ed., The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1973.)
Peirce, C.S., Collected Papers (ed. by C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss), vols. 1–6, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1931–35.
Popper, K.R., The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London, 1959.
Popper, K.R., ’Autobiography’, in P.A. Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of Karl Popper,Part I, Open Court, La Salle, 1974, pp. 1–181. (a)
Popper, K.R., ’Replies to My Critics’, in P.A. Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of Karl Popper,Part II, Open Court, La Salle, 1974, pp. 961–1197. (b)
Rescher, N., Scientific Progress, Blackwell, Oxford, 1978.
Russell, B., The Scientific Outlook, London, 1931.
Thagard, P., ’Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience’, in P.D. Asquith and I. Hacking (eds.), PSA 1978, vol. 1, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, 1978, pp. 223–234.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1984 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Niiniluoto, I. (1984). The Nature of Science. In: Is Science Progressive?. Synthese Library, vol 177. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1978-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1978-0_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8404-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-1978-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive