Erkenntnis

, Volume 78, Issue 5, pp 1109–1132 | Cite as

Theory Choice, Good Sense and Social Consensus

Original Article

Abstract

There has been a significant interest in the recent literature in developing a solution to the problem of theory choice which is both normative and descriptive, but agent-based rather than rule-based, originating from Pierre Duhem’s notion of ‘good sense’. In this paper we present the properties Duhem attributes to good sense in different contexts, before examining its current reconstructions advanced in the literature and their limitations. We propose an alternative account of good sense, seen as promoting social consensus in science, and show that it is superior to its rivals in two respects: it is more faithful to Duhemian good sense, and it cashes out the effect that virtues have on scientific progress. We then defend the social consensus account against objections that highlight the positive role of diversity and division of labour in science.

References

  1. de Finetti, B. (1974). Theory of probability. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Duhem, P. (1954 [1906]). The aim and structure of physical theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Duhem, P. (1991). German science: Some reflections on German science: German science and German virtues (John Lyon, Trans.). La Salle, IL: Open Court (First published 1915).Google Scholar
  4. Duhem, P. (1996 [1893]). Physics and metaphysics. In R. Ariew & P. Barker (Eds.), Pierre Duhem: Essays in the history and philosophy of science (pp. 29–50). Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  5. Fairweather, A. (2011). The epistemic value of good sense. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 43(1), 139–146.Google Scholar
  6. Gillies, D. (2000). Philosophical theories of probability. Routledge: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  7. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hull, D. L. (1988). Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ivanova, M. (2010). Pierre Duhem’s good sense as a guide to theory choice. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 41, 58–64.Google Scholar
  10. Ivanova, M. (2011). ‘Good sense’ in context: A response to kidd. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 42(4), 610–612.Google Scholar
  11. Ivanova, M. (forthcming). Is there place for epistemic virtues in theory choice? In A. Fairweather (Ed.), Virtue Scientia: Bridges between virtue epistemology and philosophy of science. Synthese Library, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Joyce, J. (2009). The development of subjective Bayesianism. In D. Gabbay, S. Hartmann S., & J. Woods (Eds.), Handbook of the history of logic (Vol. 10). Inductive Logic.Google Scholar
  13. Kidd, I. J. (2011). Pierre Duhem’s epistemic aims and the intellectual virtue of humility: A reply to Ivanova. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science (electronic version).Google Scholar
  14. Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kuhn, T. (Ed.). (1977). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In The essential tension: Selected studies in the scientific tradition and change (pp. 320–353). The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lakatos, I. (1970). history of science and its rational reconstructions. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Toward a theory of scientific growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Martin, R. N. D. (1991). Pierre Duhem: Philosophy and history in the work of a believing physicist. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  20. Merton, R. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mongin, P. (2009). Duhemian themes in expected utility theory. In A. Brenner & J. Gayon (Eds.), French studies in the philosophy of science. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Strevens, M. (2003). The role of the priority rule in science. The Journal of Philosophy, 100(2), 55–79.Google Scholar
  23. Stump, D. (2007). Pierre Duhem’s virtue epistemology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 38, 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stump, D. (2011). The scientist as impartial judge: Moral values in Duhem’s philosophy of science. New perspectives on Pierre Duhem’s. The aim and structure of physical theory (book symposium) Metascience, 20, 1–25.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations