Duhem’s Thesis, Feyerabend’s Methodological Anarchism and the Question About the Justification of Epistemic Change
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22370/rhv2021iss18pp173-192Keywords:
objectivity, arbitrariness, rationality, criticism, persuasion, theory choiceAbstract
Duhem-Quine’s thesis provides plausibility for Feyerabend’s methodological anarchism by showing that the empirical refutation of a theoretical system is as chimerical as its verification. Grünbaum argues against this that such a thesis is untenable. They both agree in the formulation of Duhem’s argument as it was exposed by Quine. However, the exegesis carried out by Quinn, Laudan and Ariew makes it clear that it is a mistake to identify the Duhem-Quine thesis with the Duhem thesis. I argue that, if this is so, then a refutation that can be accepted as such only in retrospect is logically possible.
References
Ariew, Roger (1984). The Duhem Thesis. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 35(4): 313-325. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/35.4.313
Ariew, Roger, Barker, Peter (Eds.) (1996). Introduction. In P. Duhem, Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science, pp. vii-xiv. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Bacon, Francis (1984 [1620]). Novum Organum Scientiarum. Madrid: Sarpe.
Broncano, Fernando (1999). Introducción. Uno de los nuestros. En P. K. Feyerabend, Ambigüedad y armonía, A. Beltrán et al. (Trad.). Barcelona: Paidós.
Duhem, Pierre (1906). La Théorie Physique, son Objet et sa Structure. Paris: Chevalier & Rivière.
Duhem, Pierre (1974). The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. New York: Atheneum.
Duhem, Pierre (1996). Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Feyerabend, Paul (1975). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchist Theory of Knowledge. London: New Left Books.
Feyerabend, Paul (1978). Science in a Free Society. London: NLB.
Feyerabend, Paul (1981). Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method - Philosophical Papers Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feyerabend, Paul (1991). Three Dialogues on Knowledge. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Feyerabend, Paul (1999a [1996]). Ambigüedad y armonía. Barcelona: Paidós.
Feyerabend, Paul (1999b [1968]). Outline of a Pluralistic Theory of Knowledge and Action. In P. Feyerabend, Knowledge, Science and Relativism - Philosophical Papers Volume 3, Edited by J. Preston, pp. 104-111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feyerabend, Paul (1999c [1970]). Experts in a Free Society. In P. Feyerabend, Knowledge, Science and Relativism - Philosophical Papers Volume 3, Edited by J. Preston, pp. 112-126 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feyerabend, Paul (1999d [1980]). Democracy, Elitism and Scientific Method. In P. Feyerabend, Knowledge, Science and Relativism - Philosophical Papers Volume 3, Edited by J. Preston, pp. 212-226 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feyerabend, Paul (2016 [1961]). Comments on Grünbaum’s ‘Law and Convention in Physical Theory’. In P. Feyerabend, Physics and Philosophy - Philosophical Papers Volume 4, Edited by S. Gattei and J. Agassi, pp. 304-310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feyerabend, Paul, Wartofsky, M. W. (Eds.), (1976). Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Gargiulo de Vázquez, María Teresa (2014). El caso Galileo o las paradojas de una racionalidad científica positivista según Paul Karl Feyerabend. Tópicos, 47: 53-88.
Grünbaum, Adolf (1976 [1960]). The Duhemian Argument. In S. Harding (Ed.) Can the Theories be Refuted? pp. 116-131. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Grünbaum, Adolf (1973). Philosophical Problems of Space and Time. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Grünbaum, Adolf (1976). Is Falsifiability the Touchstone of Scientific Rationality? Karl Popper versus Inductivism. In R. S. Cohen, P. K. Feyerabend, M. W. Wartofsky (Eds.), Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Harding, Sandra (Ed.) (1976). Can Theories Be Refuted? – Essays on the Duhem-Quine Thesis. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Kuhn, Thomas (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, Thomas (1970). Reflections on my Critics. In I. Lakatos, A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, pp. 231-278. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakatos, Imre, Musgrave, Alan (Eds.) (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakatos, Imre (1978 [1970]). Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In I. Lakatos, Philosophical Papers Volume 1, pp. 8-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Laudan, Larry (1976 [1965]). Grünbaum on ‘The Duhemian Argument’. In S. Harding (Ed.) Can Theories be Refuted? Dordrecht: Reidel.
Laudan, Larry (1980). Why Was The Logic of Discovery Abandoned? In Th. Nickles (Ed.) Scientific Discovery, Logic and Rationality. London: Reidel.
Neurath, Otto (1983a [1913]). The Lost Wanderers of Descartes and the Auxiliary Motive. In Otto Neurath, Philosophical Papers, 1913-1946, pp. 1-12. Edited by R. S. Cohen, M. Neurath. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Neurath, Otto (1983b [1935]). Pseaudorationalism of Falsification. In Otto Neurath, Philosophical Papers, 1913-1946, pp. 121-131. Edited by R. S. Cohen, M. Neurath. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Nickles, Thomas (Ed.) (1980). Scientific Discovery, Logic and Rationality. London: Reidel.
Popper, Karl (1959 [1935]). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Science Editions.
Popper, Karl (1963). Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge.
Quine, Willard van Orman (1961). From a Logical Point of View. New York: Harper & Row.
Quinn, Philip (1969). The status of the D-Thesis. Philosophy of Science, 36(4): 381-399.
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2022-04-11 (3)
- 2022-02-04 (2)
- 2022-02-02 (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Humanities Journal of Valparaíso
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work after publication simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
