Advertisement

Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 627–652 | Cite as

Evolving Scientific Epistemologies and the Artifacts of Empirical Philosophy of Science: A Reply Concerning Mesosomes

  • Nicolas Rasmussen
Article

Abstract

In a 1993 paper, I argued that empirical treatments of the epistemologyused by scientists in experimental work are too abstract in practice tocounter relativist efforts to explain the outcome of scientificcontroversies by reference to sociological forces. This was because, atthe rarefied level at which the methodology of scientists is treated byphilosophers, multiple mutually inconsistent instantiations of theprinciples described by philosophers are employed by contestingscientists. These multiple construals change within a scientificcommunity over short time frames, and these different versions ofscientific methodology can determine the outcome of a controversy. Iillustrated with a comparatively detailed analysis of the methodologyused by biologists debating the existence of an entity called thebacterial mesosome between the mid-1950s and the mid-1970s. This 1993piece has drawn several critiques in the philosophical literature. Inthis present piece I respond to these critiques and argue that they failto address the core argument of the original paper, and I reflectfurther on the methodologies of philosophers of science pursuingempirical or `naturalistic' epistemology.

electron microscopy experiment mesosomes naturalized epistemology relativism robustness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bachelard, G.: 1984, The New Scientific Spirit (Goldhammer, A., trans.), Beacon Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  2. Callebaut, W. and Pinxten, R. (eds.): 1987, Evolutionary Epistemology: A Multiparadigm Program, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  3. Chapman, G. and Hillier, J.: 1953, ‘Electron Microscopy of Ultrathin Sections of Bacteria’, Journal of Bacteriology 66, 362–373.Google Scholar
  4. Collins, H.: 1985, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice, Sage Publications, London.Google Scholar
  5. Culp, S.: 1994, ‘Defending Robustness: The Bacterial Mesosome as a Test Case’, in Hull, D., Forbes, M. and Burian, R. (eds.), Philosophy of Science Association 1994, Vol. 1, pp. 46–57.Google Scholar
  6. Culp, S.: 1995, ‘Objectivity in Experimental Inquiry: Breaking Data-Technique Cricles’, Philosophy of Science 62, 430–450.Google Scholar
  7. Donovan, A., Laudan, L. and Laudan, R. (eds.): 1992, Scrutinizing Science, 2nd edn., Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  8. Fitz-James, P.: 1960, ‘Participation of the Cytoplasmic Membrane in the Growth and Spore Formation of Bacilli’, Journal of Biophysical and Biochemical Cytology 8, 507–528.Google Scholar
  9. Franklin, A.: 1986, The Neglect of Experiment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. Grantham, T.: 1994, ‘Does Science Have a Global Goal? A Critique of Hull's View of Conceptual Progress’, Biology and Philosophy 9, 85–97.Google Scholar
  11. Hacking, I.: 1983, Representing and Intervening, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. Hook, S.: 1995, John Dewey: An Intellectual Portrait, Prometheus, Amherst, N.Y.Google Scholar
  13. Hudson, R.: 1999, ‘Mesosomes: A Study in the Nature of Experimental Reasoning’, Philosophy of Science 66, 289–309.Google Scholar
  14. Hull, D.: 1988, Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  15. Jardine, N.: 1986, The Fortunes of Inquiry, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. Kosso, P.: 1988, ‘Dimensions of Observability’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39, 449–467.Google Scholar
  17. Kosso, P.: 1989, ‘Science and Objectivity’, Journal of Philosophy 86, 245–257.Google Scholar
  18. Kuhn, T.: 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn., University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  19. Laudan, L.: 1984, Science and Values, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  20. Laudan, L.: 1987, ‘Progress or Rationality? The Prospects for Normative Naturalism’, American Philosophical Quarterly 24, 19–31.Google Scholar
  21. Laudan, L.: 1996, Beyond Positivism and Relativism, University of Minnesota Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  22. Laudan, L.: 1986, ‘Scientific Change: Philosophical Methods and Historical Research’, Synthese 69, 141–223.Google Scholar
  23. Nanninga, N.: 1973, ‘Freeze-Fracturing of Microorganisms: Physical and Chemical Fixation of Bacillus subtilis’, in Benedetti, E. and Favard, P. (eds.), Freeze-Etching: Techiques and Applications, Societe Francaise de Microscopie Electronique, Paris, pp. 151–179.Google Scholar
  24. Nola, R.: 1999, ‘On the Possibility of a Scientific Theory of Scientific Method’, Science and Education 8, 427–439.Google Scholar
  25. Rasmussen, N.: 1993, ‘Fact, Artifacts, and Mesosomes: Practicing Epistemology with the Electron Microscope’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 24, 227–265.Google Scholar
  26. Rasmussen, N.: 1995, ‘Mitochondrial Structure and the Practice of Cell Biology in the 1950 s’, Journal of the History of Biology 28, 1–49.Google Scholar
  27. Rasmussen, N.: 1997, Picture Control: The Electron Microscope and the Transformation of Biology in America, 1940–1960, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  28. Ruestow, E.: 1996, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic: The Shaping of Discovery, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Wimsatt, W.: 1981, ‘Robustness, Reliability, and Overdetermination’, in Brewer, M. and Collins, B. (eds.), Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences, Jossey-Bass, San Franciso, pp. 124–163.Google Scholar
  30. Worral, J.: 1999, “Two Cheers for Naturalised Philosophy of Science’, Science and Education 8, 339–361.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolas Rasmussen
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Science and TechnologyUniversity of New South WalesSyndeyAustralia

Personalised recommendations