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
Rights 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
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00883107
Keywords
- Scientific Inquiry
- Improve Method
- Positive Evidence
- Improve Methodology
- Methodological Innovation