Evolving Scientific Epistemologies and the Artifacts of Empirical Philosophy of Science: A Reply Concerning Mesosomes
- Nicolas Rasmussen
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
In a 1993 paper, I argued that empirical treatments of the epistemologyused by scientists in experimental work are too abstract in practice tocounter relativist efforts to explain the outcome of scientificcontroversies by reference to sociological forces. This was because, atthe rarefied level at which the methodology of scientists is treated byphilosophers, multiple mutually inconsistent instantiations of theprinciples described by philosophers are employed by contestingscientists. These multiple construals change within a scientificcommunity over short time frames, and these different versions ofscientific methodology can determine the outcome of a controversy. Iillustrated with a comparatively detailed analysis of the methodologyused by biologists debating the existence of an entity called thebacterial mesosome between the mid-1950s and the mid-1970s. This 1993piece has drawn several critiques in the philosophical literature. Inthis present piece I respond to these critiques and argue that they failto address the core argument of the original paper, and I reflectfurther on the methodologies of philosophers of science pursuingempirical or `naturalistic' epistemology.
- Bachelard, G.: 1984, The New Scientific Spirit (Goldhammer, A., trans.), Beacon Press, Boston.
- Callebaut, W. and Pinxten, R. (eds.): 1987, Evolutionary Epistemology: A Multiparadigm Program, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
- Chapman, G. and Hillier, J.: 1953, ‘Electron Microscopy of Ultrathin Sections of Bacteria’, Journal of Bacteriology 66, 362–373.
- Collins, H.: 1985, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice, Sage Publications, London.
- Culp, S.: 1994, ‘Defending Robustness: The Bacterial Mesosome as a Test Case’, in Hull, D., Forbes, M. and Burian, R. (eds.), Philosophy of Science Association 1994, Vol. 1, pp. 46–57.
- Culp, S.: 1995, ‘Objectivity in Experimental Inquiry: Breaking Data-Technique Cricles’, Philosophy of Science 62, 430–450.
- Donovan, A., Laudan, L. and Laudan, R. (eds.): 1992, Scrutinizing Science, 2nd edn., Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
- Fitz-James, P.: 1960, ‘Participation of the Cytoplasmic Membrane in the Growth and Spore Formation of Bacilli’, Journal of Biophysical and Biochemical Cytology 8, 507–528.
- Franklin, A.: 1986, The Neglect of Experiment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Grantham, T.: 1994, ‘Does Science Have a Global Goal? A Critique of Hull's View of Conceptual Progress’, Biology and Philosophy 9, 85–97.
- Hacking, I.: 1983, Representing and Intervening, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Hook, S.: 1995, John Dewey: An Intellectual Portrait, Prometheus, Amherst, N.Y.
- Hudson, R.: 1999, ‘Mesosomes: A Study in the Nature of Experimental Reasoning’, Philosophy of Science 66, 289–309.
- Hull, D.: 1988, Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
- Jardine, N.: 1986, The Fortunes of Inquiry, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
- Kosso, P.: 1988, ‘Dimensions of Observability’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39, 449–467.
- Kosso, P.: 1989, ‘Science and Objectivity’, Journal of Philosophy 86, 245–257.
- Kuhn, T.: 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn., University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
- Laudan, L.: 1984, Science and Values, University of California Press, Berkeley.
- Laudan, L.: 1987, ‘Progress or Rationality? The Prospects for Normative Naturalism’, American Philosophical Quarterly 24, 19–31.
- Laudan, L.: 1996, Beyond Positivism and Relativism, University of Minnesota Press, Ann Arbor.
- Laudan, L.: 1986, ‘Scientific Change: Philosophical Methods and Historical Research’, Synthese 69, 141–223.
- Nanninga, N.: 1973, ‘Freeze-Fracturing of Microorganisms: Physical and Chemical Fixation of Bacillus subtilis’, in Benedetti, E. and Favard, P. (eds.), Freeze-Etching: Techiques and Applications, Societe Francaise de Microscopie Electronique, Paris, pp. 151–179.
- Nola, R.: 1999, ‘On the Possibility of a Scientific Theory of Scientific Method’, Science and Education 8, 427–439.
- Rasmussen, N.: 1993, ‘Fact, Artifacts, and Mesosomes: Practicing Epistemology with the Electron Microscope’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 24, 227–265.
- Rasmussen, N.: 1995, ‘Mitochondrial Structure and the Practice of Cell Biology in the 1950 s’, Journal of the History of Biology 28, 1–49.
- Rasmussen, N.: 1997, Picture Control: The Electron Microscope and the Transformation of Biology in America, 1940–1960, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
- Ruestow, E.: 1996, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic: The Shaping of Discovery, Cambridge University Press, New York.
- Wimsatt, W.: 1981, ‘Robustness, Reliability, and Overdetermination’, in Brewer, M. and Collins, B. (eds.), Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences, Jossey-Bass, San Franciso, pp. 124–163.
- Worral, J.: 1999, “Two Cheers for Naturalised Philosophy of Science’, Science and Education 8, 339–361.
- Evolving Scientific Epistemologies and the Artifacts of Empirical Philosophy of Science: A Reply Concerning Mesosomes
Biology and Philosophy
Volume 16, Issue 5 , pp 627-652
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- electron microscopy
- naturalized epistemology
- Author Affiliations
- 1. School of Science and Technology, University of New South Wales, Syndey, NSW, 2052, Australia