Skip to main content

The logic of scientific inquiry

Summary

Is methodological theorya priori ora posteriori knowledge? It is perhapsa posteriori improvable, somehow. For example, Duhem discovered that since scientists disagree on methods, they do not always know what they are doing.

How is methodological innovation possible? If it is inapplicable in retrospect, then it is not universal and so seems defective; if it is, then there is a miracle here. Even so, the new explicit awareness of rules previously implicitly known is in itself beneficial. And so, improved methodology may make for improved methods. Hence, methodology is in part descriptive, in part prescriptive. Knowing this, a methodologist might improve his own studies. For example, Popper would then not hasten to conclude from the fact that past scientists depended on positive evidence that they had better do so in future as well; perhaps a lesser concern with confirmation may increase the productivity of scientific inquiry.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Agassi, J. The logic of scientific inquiry. Synthese 26, 498–514 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00883107

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00883107

Keywords

  • Scientific Inquiry
  • Improve Method
  • Positive Evidence
  • Improve Methodology
  • Methodological Innovation