Abstract
Much of the focus on Poincaré’s philosophy of science has been on the notion of convention, a crucial concept that has become distinctive of his position. However, other notions have received much less attention. That is the case of verifiable hypotheses. This kind of hypotheses seems to be constituted from the generalization of several observable facts. So, in order to understand what these hypotheses are, we need to know what a fact to Poincaré is. He divides facts into brute and scientific facts. The characterization of this duality is not trivial at all, and leads us to the following questions that we will discuss in this paper: (1) which the part of construction that exists in a scientific fact and which the part of translation, that is, what remains from the brute fact in the scientific one?; and (2) when we conceive a generalized hypothesis, are we supposed to do it from scientific or from brute facts? The clarification of these questions could lead to distinguish the part of construction and the part of translation in the first steps of science, which is essential to get a better understanding of Poincaré’s conception of science.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We have to remember that the laws are still provisional according to Poincaré (1905, p. 121), and that makes the difference with conventional statements.
References
Couturat, L. (1900). Contre le nominalisme de M. Le Roy. Révue de métaphysique et de morale, 8, 63–85.
de Paz, M. (2014). The third way epistemology: a Re-characterization of Poincaré’s Conventionalism. In M. de Paz & R. DiSalle (Eds.), Poincaré, philosopher of science: Problems and perspectives (pp. 47–65). New York: Springer.
de Paz, M. (2015). Poincaré’s classification of hypotheses and their role in natural science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 29(4), 369–382.
de Paz, M. (2016). Henri Poincaré: Del Convencionalismo a la Gravitación. London: College Publications.
DiSalle, R. (2014). Conventionalism. In S. Psillos & M. Curd (Eds.), The Routledge companion to the philosophy of science (2nd ed., pp. 3–14). London: Routledge.
Friedman, M. (2001). Dynamics of reason: The 1999 kant lectures at Stanford University. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Galison, P. (2003). Einstein’s clocks, Poincaré’s maps: the empires of time. New York: Norton.
Heinzmann, G. (2009). Hypotheses and conventions in Poincaré. In M. Heidelberger & G. Schiemann (Eds.), The significance of the hypothetical in the natural sciences (pp. 169–192). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Le Roy, E. (1899). Science et philosophie. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 2, 375–425.
Le Roy, E. (1900). Réponse à M. Couturat. Révue de Métaphysique et de morale, 8, 223–233.
Ly, I. (2008). Mathématique et physique dans l’oeuvre philosophique de Poincaré. Unpublished PhD thesis, Université Nancy 2.
Poincaré, H. (1902). La Science et l’hypothèse (p. 1968). Paris: Flammarion. Reed.
Poincaré, H. (1905). La Valeur de la science (p. 1970). Paris: Flammarion. Reed.
Poincaré, H. (1908). Science et méthode. Paris: Flammarion. Reed. Philosophia Scientiae 1998–1999 Cahier Spécial 3. Paris: Kimé.
Poincaré, H. (1913a) Dernières pensées, Paris, Flammarion. Reed. 1920.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London & New York: Hutchinson & Co.
Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London & New York: Routledge.
Schmid, A. F. (2001). Henri Poincaré, les sciences et la philosophie, Paris, L’Harmattan.
Acknowledgements
I want to thank the research project ‘The Genesis of Mathematical Knowledge: Cognition, History and Practices’ (P12-HUM-1216) for funding support and Department I of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science (MPIWG) for the Visiting Fellowship during which I finished this work. I also want to thank two anonymous referees and the editors of this journal.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
de Paz, M. Poincaré on Generalizations and Facts: Construction or Translation?. Found Sci 23, 549–558 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-017-9539-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-017-9539-6