Abstract
These comments center on the methodological stance that Howard and Maiocchi recommend to us when we are doing history of philosophy. If Howard and Maiocchi are right, both Duhem and Einstein developed closely related versions of conventionalism and realism, and in both of their philosophies the conventionalist and realist moments were mutually compatible. Duhem's holism and, arguably, Einstein's as well, denies the need for across-the-board literalism, and both of them had important reasons for denying that convergence was required or even desirable for realism. Thus, for those who are caught up in the current disputes, serious consideration of the discrepancies between the standard current versions of realism and conventionalism and the positions that contextualist analyses reveal to have been advocated by Duhem and Einstein may uncover some of the tacit assumptions that impede the resolution or advancement of our disputes.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Burian, R., J. Gayon and D. Zallen: 1988, ‘The Singular Fate of Genetics in the History of French Biology, 1900–1940’, Journal of the History of Biology 21, 357–402.
Duhem, P.: 1917, ‘Notice sur les titres et travaux scientifiques de Pierre Duhem’, Mémoires de la Société des Sciences physiques et naturelles de Bordeaux series 7, 1, 40–169 (translated in part in this issue).
Howard, D.: 1987, ‘Einstein's Conventionalism’, paper delivered at the Department of Philosophy, Johns Hopkins University, 25 February 1987.
Howard, D.: 1989, ‘Duhem and Einstein’, this issue.
Maiocchi, R.: 1989, ‘Pierre Duhlem's The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory: A Book Against conventionalism’, this issue.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Burian, R.M. Maiocchi on Duhem, howard on Duhem and Einstein: Historiographical comments. Synthese 83, 401–408 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00413424
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00413424