Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Repairing the reticulated model of scientific rationality

Abstract

InScience and Values (1984) and other, more recent, works, e.g. (1987a, 1987b, 1989a, 1989b, 1990), Larry Laudan proposes a theory of scientific debate he dubs the “reticulated model of scientific rationality” (Laudan, 1984, pp. 50–66). The model stands in sharp contrast to hierarchical approaches to rationality exemplified by Popper (1959), Hempel (1965), and Reichenbach (1938), as well as the conventionalist views of rationality defended by Carnap (1950), Popper (1959), Kuhn (1962), and Lakatos (1978). Ironically, the model commits some of the same errors Laudan finds in hierarchicalist and conventionalists approaches to scientific rationality. This paper will show that the model can be fixed by recognizing that criteria of goal assessment have no privileged status. These rules are best viewed as simply rules of rationality (or rules of scientific method) by another name.

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

References

  1. Boyd, R.: 1984, ‘The Current Status of Scientific Realism’, in J. Leplin (ed.),Scientific Realism, University of California Press, Berkeley.

  2. Carnap, R.: 1950, ‘Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology’,Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4, 20–40.

  3. Cherniak, C.: 1986,Minimal Rationality, The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass.

  4. Doppelt, G.: 1982, ‘Kuhn's Epistemological Relativism: An Interpretation and Defense’, in M. Krausz and J. Meiland (eds.),Relativism: Cognitive and Moral, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, pp. 113–48.

  5. Doppelt, G.: 1986, ‘Relativism and the Reticulational Model of Scientific Rationality’,Synthese 69, 225–52.

  6. Fine, A.: 1986,The Shaky Game, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

  7. Hempel, C.: 1965,Aspects of Scientific Explanation, The Free Press, New York.

  8. Kuhn, T.: 1962,The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

  9. Lakatos, I.: 1978,The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  10. Laudan, L.: 1981, ‘A Confutation of Convergent Realism’,Philosophy of Science 48, 19–48.

  11. Laudan, L.: 1984,Science and Values, University of California Press, Berkeley.

  12. Laudan, L.: 1987a, ‘Progress or Rationality? The Prospects for Normative Naturalism’,American Philosophical Quarterly 24, 19–31.

  13. Laudan, L.: 1987b, Relativism, Naturalism, and Reticulation’,Synthese 71, 221–34.

  14. Laudan, L.: 1989a, ‘The Rational Weight of the Scientific Past’, in M. Ruse (ed.),What the Philosophy of Biology Is, Reidel, Dordrecht.

  15. Laudan, L.: 1989b, ‘If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It’,British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40, 369–75.

  16. Laudan, L.: 1990, ‘Normative Naturalism’,Philosophy of Science 57, 44–59.

  17. Newton-Smith, W. H.: 1978,The Rationality of Science, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

  18. Nickles, T.: 1986, ‘Remarks on the Use of History as Evidence’,Synthese 69, 253–66.

  19. Niiniluoto, I.: 1987,Truthlikeness, Reidel, Dordrecht.

  20. Park, D.: 1988,The How and The Why, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

  21. Popper, K.: 1959,The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books, New York.

  22. Reichenbach, H.: 1938,Experience and Prediction, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

  23. Resnik, D.: 1992, ‘Convergent Realism and Approximate Truth’, in D. Hull, M. Forbes, and K. Okruhlik (eds.),PSA 1992, Volume 1. Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, MI, pp. 412–34.

  24. Ruse, M.: 1979,The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

  25. van Fraassen, B.: 1980,The Scientific Image, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Resnik, D. Repairing the reticulated model of scientific rationality. Erkenntnis 40, 343–355 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01128903

Download citation

Keywords

  • Sharp Contrast
  • Conventionalist Approach
  • Scientific Method
  • Hierarchical Approach
  • Scientific Debate