Abstract
According to Allchin (2003), Lawson (2002) tried to shoehorn the history of scienceinto a preconceived philosophical category, the hypothetico-deductive method (HD).Lawson replied (2003) that discovery is based on HD because that's the way the brainworks, and accused Allchin of shoehorning science into another method, blind searchand induction. In agreement with Allchin, who actually wrote that HD is one of severalmethods used by scientists, I argue that HD by itself cannot explain how new theoriesand discoveries are accepted in science. Historical research has shown that other factorsare involved.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Achenbach, J.: 2000, '“Left-Handed” Material said to Reverse Energy', Washington Post, 22 March, p. A13.
Aharoni, A.: 1995, 'Agreement between Theory and Experiment', Physics Today 48(6), June, 33-37.
Allchin, D.: 2003, 'Lawson's Shoehorn, or Should the Philosophy of Science Be Rated “X”?', Science and Education 12, 315-329.
Bondi, H.: 1957, 'Fact and Inference in Theory and in Observation', Vistas in Astronomy 1, 155-162.
Brush, S.G.: 1974, 'Should the History of Science be Rated X?' Science 183, 1164-1172.
Brush, S.G.: 1989, 'Prediction and Theory Evaluation: The Case of Light Bending', Science 246, 1124-1129.
Brush, S.G.: 1990, 'Prediction and Theory Evaluation: Alfvén on Space Plasma Phenomena', Eos (Transactions of the American Geophysical Union) 71, 19-33.
Brush, S.G.: 2002, 'Cautious Revolutionaries: Maxwell, Planck, Hubble', American Journal of Physics 70, 119-127.
French, A.P.: 1999, 'The strange Case of Emil Rupp', Physics in Perspective 1, 3-21.
Hetherington, N.: 1988, Science and Subjectivity, Iowa State University Press, Ames.
Hull, D.L., Tessner, P.D. &; Diamond, A.M.: 1978, 'Planck's Principle', Science 202, 717-723.
Kuhn, T.S.: 1961, 'The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science', Isis 52, 161-193.
Lawson, A.E.: 2002, 'What Does Galileo's Discovery of Jupiter's Moons Tell Us about the Process of Scientific Discovery?' Science and Education 11, 1-24.
Lawson, A.E.: 2003, 'Allchin's Shoehorn, or Why Science Is Hypothetico-Deductive', Science and Education 12, 331-337.
Mahoney, M.J.: 1976, Scientist as Subject, Ballinger, New York.
Maltese, G.: 2000, 'The late Entrance of Relativity into Italian Scientific Community (1906–1930)', Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 31, 125-173.
Pickering, A. (ed.): 1992, Science as Practice and as Culture, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Schwarzschild, B.: 2002, 'Lawrence Berkeley Lab Concludes that Evidence of Element 118 was a Fabrication', Physics Today 55(9), September, 15-17.
Sturrock, P.J.: 1973, 'Evaluation of Astrophysical Hypotheses', Astrophysical Journal 182, 569-580.
Tweney, R.D., Doherty, M.E. &; Mynatt, C.R.: 1981, On Scientific Thinking, Columbia University Press, New York.
Wason, P.C.: 1960, 'On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses in a Conceptual Task', Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 12, 129-140.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brush, S.G. Comments on the Epistemological Shoehorn Debate. Science & Education 13, 197–200 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCED.0000025605.42300.6d
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCED.0000025605.42300.6d