Skip to main content

Historical Realism and Contextual Objectivity: A Developing Perspective in the Philosophy of Science

  • Chapter
The Process of Science

Part of the book series: Science and Philosophy ((SCPH,volume 3))

Abstract

The twentieth century ought to have been a century of philosophical reform — goodness knows, enough people have tried to make it so. But philosophical revolutions appear painfully difficult to accomplish. In the case of philosophical reflection about scientific knowledge, perhaps, one ought not to complain, since the orthodoxy we need to overcome was itself established as orthodoxy only in mid-century. Still, the situation is puzzling. Although so far as I know the so-called ‘received view’ is by now received only in a few outlying places, and although every reprint or preprint I receive seems to announce a new almost orthodoxy from yet another angle — in spite of all that, a positive, non-apologizing acceptance of a new approach to the philosophy of science seems to be still outstanding. When I have tried on a number of occasions in the past few years to suggest what such a new approach might look like, I have been received with the announcement that I was presenting a position of pure relativism, or, worse yet, pragmatism.2 That there is a quasi-relativistic component in the new philosophy of science I am willing to admit, though I would prefer to call it a perspectival component (I will return to that briefly later). But pragmatism! If that is the kind of abandonment of any interest in cognitive claims we are supposed to be advocating, we are presenting our case very badly — or rather I have been doing so, for of course I am speaking only from my own experience.

This paper was written as a lecture for the University of California, Davis, April, 1985. It is a very rough draft of what might — or ought — to be said on this topic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Bibliography

  • Annis, David (1978), ‘A contextualist theory of epistemic justification’, Amer. Phil. Quart. 15: 213–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, John (1982), ‘What’s in a word? Coming to terms with the Darwinian revolution’, J. Hist. Biol. 15: 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, E.A. (1966), The Gene: A Critical History (Philidelphia and London: W.B. Saunders Co.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Depew, D.J. and Weber B.H. eds. (1985), Evolution at the Crossroads: The New Biology and the New Philosophy of Science (Cambridge, MA.: Bradford Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J.J. (1979), The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (Boston: Houghton — Mifflin).

    Google Scholar 

  • Grene, M. (1974), The Understanding of Nature (Dordrecht: Reidel).

    Google Scholar 

  • Grene, M. (1983). ‘Empiricism and the philosophy of science, or n dogmas of empiricism’, in Epistemology, Methodology, and the Social Sciences, R.S. Cohen and M. Wartofsky, eds. (Dordrecht: Reidel), pp. 89–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grene, M. (1986), ‘Philosophy of biology, 1983: Problems and prospects’, Proc. 8th Int. Cong. Logic, Meth., Phil. Sci., VII, pp. 433–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grene, M. (1986), ‘Perception and interpretation in the sciences: Toward a new philosophy of science’, forthcoming in the Bordet Lectures, C. Knight, ed. (Belfast: Queen’s University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. (1974), Philosophy of Biological Science (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (1978), ‘Theories, theorists, and theoretical change’, Phil. Rev. 87: 519–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (1982), ‘Genes’, Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 33: 337–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (1984), ‘1953 and all that: A tale of two sciences’, Phil. Rev. 93: 335–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (1985), ‘Darwin’s achievement’, in Reason and Rationality in Natural Science, N. Rescher, ed., (Lanham, MD.: University Press of America).

    Google Scholar 

  • Leplin, J., ed. (1984). Scientific Realism (Berkeley: U. of California Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Levins, R. (1966). ‘The strategy of model building in evolutionary biology’, Amer. Scientist 54: 421–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E. (1984), ‘A semantic approach to the structure of population genetics’, Phil. Sci. 51: 242–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A.C. (1985), ‘Relativism, power, and philosophy’, Pres. Addr., East. Div. APA, Dec 1984, APA Proc. and Add. 59: 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945), La Phénoménologie de la Perception (Paris: Gallimard).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. (1984a), ‘Aether/or: The creation of scientific concepts’, Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 15: 175–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. (1984b). Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientific Theories (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff).

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge (London: Routledge and Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowen, L. (1986). Revisioning Epistemology: A Reflection on Truth, Risk, and Epistemic Responsibility in Scientific Practice, forthcoming Vanderbilt Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaffner, K. (1974), ‘The peripherality of reductionism in the development of molecular biology’, J. Hist. Biol. 7: 111–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E., ed. (1984a). Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology (Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (1984b). The Nature of Selection. (Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppe, F. ed. (1976). The Structure of Scientific Theories, 2nd. ed. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, K. (1985). (Essay review: the relationship between development and evolution? Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, 2, R. Dawkins and M. Ridley, eds. (Oxford: Oxford U. Press).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1987 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Grene, M. (1987). Historical Realism and Contextual Objectivity: A Developing Perspective in the Philosophy of Science. In: Nersessian, N.J. (eds) The Process of Science. Science and Philosophy, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3519-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3519-8_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-8072-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-3519-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics