I take another look at the history of science and offer some fresh insights into why the history of science is filled with discarded theories. I argue that the history of science is just as we should expect it to be, given the following two facts about science: (i) theories are always only partial representations of the world, and (ii) almost inevitably scientists will be led to investigate phenomena that the accepted theory is not fit to account for. Together these facts suggest that most scientific theories are apt to be discarded sometime, superseded by new theories that better serve scientists’ new research interests. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect that many of the theories we currently accept, despite their many impressive successes, will be discarded sometime in the future. But I also argue that discarded theories are not always aptly characterized as a sign of failure or as a sign of some sort of shortcoming with science. Theories are discarded because scientists are making advances in their pursuit of knowledge. Thus, discarded theories are often a sign of the good health of science. Scientists are responding to their changing research interests.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Obviously different types of realists construe the success of science in different ways. Structural realists merely maintain that our knowledge of the structure of reality is increasing (see Worrall 1989).
In his later writings, Thomas Kuhn suggests that changes of theory involve taxonomic or lexical changes. As a result, the various things that were grouped together in the theory that is discarded, may no longer be grouped together in the successor theory (see, especially, Kuhn 1991/2000, pp. 91–94).
There is not just one Pessimistic Induction. Rather there are a variety of different arguments that are called “Pessimistic Inductions” discussed in the literature (see Wray 2015).
There are alternative strategies for reducing the inductive base upon which the Pessimistic Induction rests. Lange (2002), for example, suggests that our concern should not be with the number of theories that have been discarded in the past. Rather, he suggests that some specific fields may have a higher turnover rate than other fields, and we do not want to judge the latter fields on the basis of the failures in the former fields.
Poincaré (1913/2001) discusses a version of this view in The Value of Science. He refers to it as “the scientific conception.” According to the scientific conception “every law is only a statement, imperfect and provisional, but it must one day be replaced by another, a superior law, of which it is only a crude image” (339).
Poincaré also suggests that some gains are never lost (see 1905/2001, pp. 122–123). Specifically Poincaré claims that even through an episode of radical theory change “the differential equations are always true, they may always be integrated by the same methods, and the results of this integration still preserve their value” (pp. 122–123). Kuhn also believes that some gains are preserved through radical theory change. “Laws...to the extent that they are purely empirical, enter science as net additions to knowledge and are never thereafter entirely displaced” (Kuhn 1976/1977, p. 19). Theories, Kuhn believes, are a different matter (see 1976/1977, p. 19).
I have benefited from Stathis Psillos’ (1999, p. 263) analysis of Tichý’s and Miller’s papers. Larry Laudan has also objected to the realists’ appeal to the notion of approximate truth (see Laudan 1984, pp. 30, 31). Laudan notes that “few...have defined what it means for a statement or theory to be ‘approximately true”’ (Laudan 1984, p. 30). Incidentally, some realists recognize the difficulties with operationalizing the notion of relative closeness to the truth, but insist that we can rely on a common sense understanding of what “relative closeness to the truth” means in judgments of competing theories (see, for example, Psillos 1999, pp. 276–279; and Chalmers 2013, pp. 260–264). Attempts to revive the notion of increasing verisimilitude in an effort to explain scientific progress continue (see, for example, Niiniluoto 1999, 2014). Darrell Rowbottom, though, argues that “central aspects of scientific progress do not involve science’s theories increasing in verisimilitude” (Rowbottom 2015, p. 104). Rowbottom claims that even false beliefs can promote progress.
Chakravartty (2007) provides a clear account of the difference between abstractions and idealizations. “An abstract theory is one that results when only some of the potentially many relevant factors present in a target system are taken into account” (Chakravartty 2007, p. 221). On the other hand, “an idealized theory is one that results when one or more factors is simplified... so as to represent a system in a way it could not be” (221). My concern will be with abstractions as they make our theories partial, accounted for some features of the world but not others.
Popper discusses the evolutionary basis of the way animals divide their environments. A hungry animal discerns between food and non-food, an animal being pursued by a predator discerns between hiding places and escapes routes (see Popper 1957/2002, p. 61). Popper’s examples are drawn from D. Katz’s Animals and Men. Clearly, the layperson is more like an animal than a scientist in this respect.
Perhaps the exception here is those enormous research teams that virtually employ most of the scientists working in a field. When such a research team changes its interests, the field as a whole changes its interests; the field and the team are co-extensive. This, though, is probably rare, and may only happen in certain areas of physics.
The Copernican Revolution in astronomy is exceptional in this respect. There were, as many know, three well developed alternative theories competing for the allegiance of European astronomers around 1600: the Copernican theory, the late Renaissance version of the Ptolemaic theory, and Tycho Brahe’s theory. There, were, in addition, other competitors, including a version of Brahe’s theory that included the Earth rotating on its axis daily, and the so-called “Egyptian theory,” which was Earth-centered, but had Mercury and Venus, but not the other planets, orbiting the Sun as the Sun orbits the Earth. More often, scientists are faced with a choice between just two competing theories.
One might think that I am presenting a false dilemma here by suggesting that a theory is discarded either (i) because, as is typically suggested, it are discovered to be false, or (ii) because, as I suggest, the theory no longer serves the interests of scientists. This is not so. First, scientists might discover that a theory is both false and no longer serves their interests. Second, there might be other reasons as well that lead scientists to discard a theory. I thank one of the referees for Synthese for drawing this concern to my attention.
There are affinities between the view I present here, and Carnap’s view in “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology.” Carnap claims that the choice of a language or theory is a pragmatic choice. “The acceptance [of a language or theory] cannot be judged as being true or false because it is not an assertion. It can only be judged as being more or less expedient, fruitful, conducive to the aims for which the language is intended” (Carnap 1950, p. 31). Note the central role that he attributes to the aims of the people adopting the language or theory.
Indeed, some of the variables scientists must work with are determined by funding agencies. For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States might fund a grant program for research on diabetes among African Americans. Clearly, this puts some constraints on the variables that need to be accounted for. But there is much more that needs to be determined, and this is left to the discretion of the scientists.
Bird, A. (2000). Thomas Kuhn. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Boyd, R. N. (1985). Lex orandi est lex credendi. In P. M. Churchland & C. A. Hooker (Eds.), Images of science: Essays on realism and empiricism, with a reply from Bas C. van Fraassen (pp. 3–34). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carnap, R. (1950). Empiricism, semantics, and ontology. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4, 20–40.
Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chakravartty, A. (2007). A metaphysics for scientific realism: Knowing the unobservable. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chalmers, A. F. (2013). What is this thing called science? (4th ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Inc.
Devitt, M. (2011). Are unconceived alternatives a problem for scientific realism? Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 42, 285–293.
Fahrbach, L. (2011). How the growth of science ends theory change. Synthese, 180(2), 139–155.
Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldstein, B. R. (1996). The pre-telescopic treatment of the phases and apparent size of Venus. Journal for the History of Astronomy, 27, 1–12.
Green, R. E., et al. (2010). A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome. Science, 328(5979), 710–722.
Hardin, C. L., & Rosenberg, A. (1982). In defense of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science, 49, 604–615.
Harker, D. (2013). How to split a theory: Defending selective realism and convergence without proximity. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 64, 79–106.
Hempel, C. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hesse, M. (1976). Truth and the growth of scientific knowledge. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, 261–280.
Hull, D. L. (2001). Why scientists behave scientifically. In D. L. Hull (Ed.), Science and selection: Essays on biological evolution and the philosophy of science (pp. 135–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
James, W. (1907/1949). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. In W. James (Ed.), Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking together with four related essays selected from The meaning of truth. New York: Longmans, Green and Company.
Kitcher, P. (1993). Advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1976/1977). The relations between the history and the philosophy of science. In T. S. Kuhn (Ed.), Essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change (pp. 3–20). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1987/2000). What are scientific revolutions? In J. Conant & J. Haugeland (Eds.), The road since structure: Philosophical essays, 1970–1993, with an autobiographical interview (pp. 13–32). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1991/2000). The road since structure. In J. Conant & J. Haugeland (Eds.), The road since structure: Philosophical essays, 1970–1993, with an autobiographical interview (pp. 90–104). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962/2012). Structure of scientific revolutions, 4th ed., with an Introductory essay by I. Hacking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lange, M. (2002). Baseball, pessimistic inductions and the turnover fallacy. Analysis, 62, 281–285.
Laudan, L. (1981). A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science, 48(1), 19–49.
Laudan, L. (1984). Science and values: The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Leplin, J. (1997). A novel defense of scientific realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Longino, H. E. (2001). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mach, E. (1892). Facts and mental symbols. The Monist, 2(2), 198–208.
Miller, D. (1974). Popper’s quantitative theory of verisimilitude. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25(2), 166–177.
Mizrahi, M. (2013). The pessimistic induction: A bad argument gone too far. Synthese, 190(15), 3209–3226.
Musgrave, A. (1988). The ultimate argument for scientific realism. In R. Nola (Ed.), Relativism and realism in science (pp. 229–252). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Niiniluoto, I. (1999). Critical scientific realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Niiniluoto, I. (2014). Scientific progress as increasing verisimilitude. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 46, 73–77.
Poincaré, H. (1905/2001). Science and hypothesis. In S. J. Gould (Ed.), The value of science: Essential writings of Poincaré. New York: The Modern Library.
Poincaré, H. (1913/2001). The value of science, translated by G. B. Halsted. In S. J. Gould (Ed.), The value of science: Essential writings of Poincaré. New York: The Modern Library.
Popper, K. R. (1972/1979). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach (revised ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Popper, K. R. (1952/2002). The nature of philosophical problems and their roots in science. In K. R. Popper (Ed.), Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge (pp. 88-129). London: Routledge.
Popper, K. R. (1957/2002). Science: Conjectures and refutations. In K. R. Popper (Ed.), Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge (pp. 43–86). London: Routledge.
Popper, K. R. (1963/2002). Truth, rationality, and the growth of knowledge. In K. R. Popper (Ed.), Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge (pp. 291–338). London: Routledge..
Psillos, S. (1999). Scientific realism: How science tracks truth. London: Routledge.
Putnam, H. (1975). Mathematics, matter and method: Philosophical papers (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosen, G. (1994). What is constructive empiricism? Philosophical Studies, 74(2), 143–178.
Rowbottom, D. P. (2014). Aimless science. Synthese, 191, 1211–1221.
Rowbottom, D. P. (2015). Scientific progress without increasing verisimilitude: In response to Niiniluoto. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 51, 100–104.
Sankararaman, S., Patterson, N., Li, H., Pääbo, S., & Reich, D. (2012). The date of interbreeding between Neandertals and modern humans. PLOS Genetics, 8(10), e1002947. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002947.
Stanford, P. K. (2001). Refusing the devil’s bargain: What kind of underdetermination should we take seriously? Philosophy of Science, 68(3, Proceedings), S1–S12.
Stanford, P. K. (2006). Exceeding our grasp: Science, history, and the problem of unconceived alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tichý, P. (1974). On Popper’s definition of verisimilitude. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25(2), 155–160.
Van Fraassen, B. C. (1994). Gideon Rosen on constructive empiricism. Philosophical Studies, 74(2), 179–192.
Vernot, B., & Akey, J. M. (2014). Resurrecting surviving Neandertal lineages from modern human genomes. Science, 343(6174), 1017–1021.
Westman, R. S. (1975). The Melanchthon circle: Rheticus, and the Wittenberg interpretation of the Copernican theory. Isis, 66(2), 164–193.
Worrall, J. (1989). Structural realism: The best of both worlds? Dialectica, 43(1–2), 99–124.
Wray, K. B. (2007). Who has scientific knowledge? Social Epistemology, 21(3), 337–347.
Wray, K. B. (2011). Kuhn’s evolutionary social epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wray, K. B. (2015). Pessimistic inductions: Four varieties. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 29(1), 61–73. doi:10.1080/02698595.2015.1071551.
I thank Lori Nash, Kristina Rolin, Moti Mizrahi, and Darrell Rowbottom for helpful comments on earlier drafts. I thank Darrell and Jamin Asay for inviting me to participate in the conference at Lingnan University in Hong Kong, on “Science: The Real Thing?” I deeply regret that I was unable to attend the conference. I thank the referees for Synthese and the editor for this special issue, Darrell Rowbottom, for their critical and constructive feedback on an earlier draft. The comments from the referees were, without a doubt, some of the most insightful and useful comments I have ever received from referees. The final revisions on the paper were made while I was a Visiting Scholar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, while on sabbatical leave. I thank MIT for hosting me and providing an environment conducive to realizing my research goals. I thank the State University of New York, Oswego, for supporting my sabbatical leave.
About this article
Cite this article
Wray, K.B. Discarded theories: the role of changing interests. Synthese 196, 553–569 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1058-4