Wisdom, Knowledge, and Management pp 105-137

Part of the C.West Churchman and Related Works Series book series (CWCL, volume 2)

Epistemic Humility

A View from the Philosophy of Science
  • Matthews D. 

Abstract

If our knowledge of the world is always filtered, interpreted and (in important ways) ‘constructed’ by our a priori faculties then we can never know things as they truly are and we are forced to accept a degree of humility with respect to our ‘scientific’ pronouncements.

Key words

humility filtering and interpretation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersson, G., 1994,Criticism and the History of Science: Kuhn’s, Lakatos’s and Feyerabend’s Criticisms of Critical Rationality, Leiden, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Ayer, A., 1959,Logical Positivism, Free Press, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Bayes, T., 1763, “Essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances”,Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,53:370–418. Reprinted in Biometrika 45: 293–315, 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, J., 1994,Reconstructing Prehistory: Scientific Method in Archaeology, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Bhaskar, R., 1986,Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation, Verso, London, UK.Google Scholar
  6. Bloor, D., 1991, Knowledge and Social Imagery. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Bohr, N. (1928) “The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory”,Nature,121:580–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bohr, N., 1935, “Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?”,Physical Review,48:696–702.MATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  9. Burke, M.M., 2000,Thinking Together: New Forms of Thought Systems for a Revolution in Military Affairs, DSTO Research Report (DSTO-RR-0173), Edinburgh, Australia.Google Scholar
  10. Carnap, R., 1928,The Logical Structure of the World, University of California Press, Berkeley, USA. This edition first published, 1967.Google Scholar
  11. Cassirer, E., 1923,The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms Volume 1: Language. Translated by Manheim, R. Yale University Press, New Haven, USA. This edition first published, 1953.Google Scholar
  12. Cassirer, E., 1925,The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms Volume 2: Mythical Thought. Translated by Manheim, R. Yale University Press, New Haven, USA. This edition first published, 1955.Google Scholar
  13. Cassirer, E., 1929,The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms Volume 3: The Phenomenology of Knowledge. Translated by Manheim, R. Yale University Press, New Haven, USA. This edition first published, 1957.Google Scholar
  14. Cassirer, E., 1942,The Logic of the Humanities. Translated by Manheim, R. Yale University Press, New Haven, USA. This edition first published, 1961.Google Scholar
  15. Chalmers, A., 2000,What Is This Thing Called Science? 3rd ed., University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, Australia.Google Scholar
  16. Checkland, P., 1981,Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  17. De Bono, E., 1990,I am Right, You are Wrong: From this to the New Renaissance, From Rock Logic to Water Logic, Penguin, Harmondsworth, UK.Google Scholar
  18. Einstein, A., 1916, “Die grundlagen der allgemeinen relativitätstheorie” (The foundation of the general theory of relativity),Annalen der Physik,49:769–822.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feyerabend, P., 1975,Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, New Left Books, London, UK.Google Scholar
  20. Friedman, M., 1992, “Philosophy and the exact sciences: Logical positivism as a case study”. in: Inference, Explanation, and other Frustrations: Essays in the Philosophy of Science, J. Earman, J., ed., University of California Press, Berkeley, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Friedman, M., 2000,A Parting of the Ways: Carnap, Cassirer and Heidegger, Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Fumerton, R., 1992, “Phenomenalism”, in: A Companion to Epistemology, J. Dancy & E. Sosa, eds., Blackwell Companions to Philosophy, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  23. Goodman, N., 1954,Fact, Fiction and Forecast, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA. This edition first published, 1983.Google Scholar
  24. Hazelrigg, L., 1989,Social Science and the Challenge of Relativism Volume 1: A Wilderness of Mirrors — On Practices of Theory in a Gray Age, University of Florida Press, Gainsville, USA.Google Scholar
  25. Heisenberg, W., 1927, “Uber die grundprinzipien der quantenmechanik”,Forschungen und Fortschritte,3:11–83.Google Scholar
  26. Hempel, C, 1945, “Studies in the logic of confirmation”,Mind,54:1–26.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Hempel, C, 1965,Aspects of Scientific Explanation.Google Scholar
  28. Hempel, C, 1966,Philosophy of Natural Science, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, USA.Google Scholar
  29. Hollway, W., 1989,Subjectivity and Method in Psychology: Gender, Meaning and Science, Sage, London, UK.Google Scholar
  30. Hoyningen-Huene, P., 1993,Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
  31. Hume, D., 1748,An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Reprint Hackett Publishers, Indianapolis, USA. 1977.Google Scholar
  32. Kant, I., 1781,Critique of Pure Reason, translated by Kemp Smith, N. Macmillan, London, UK. This edition first published in 1929.Google Scholar
  33. Kuhn, T., 1962,The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
  34. Kuhn, T., 1963, “The function of dogma in scientific research”, in: Scientific Change: Historical Studies in the Intellectual, Social and Technical Conditions for Scientific Discovery and Technical Invention, from Antiquity to the Present, A. Crombie, ed., Heinemann Educational Books, London, UK.Google Scholar
  35. Kuhn, T., 1970a,The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Kuhn, T., 1970b, “Logic of discovery or psychology of research?”, in: Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, I. Lakatos, & A. Musgrave, eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  37. Kuhn, T., 1977,The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Kuhn, T., 1998, “Objectivity, value judgement and theory choice”, in: Scientific Knowledge, J. Kourany, ed., Wadsworth, Belmont, USA.Google Scholar
  39. Kuhn, T., 2000,The Road Since Structure, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
  40. Lakatos, I., 1970, “Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes”, in: Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave, eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  41. Lakatos, I., 1977,Philosophical Papers,Volume 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  42. Laudan, L., 1996,Beyond Positivism and Relativism: Theory, Method and Evidence, Westview-Harper Collins, Boulder, USA.Google Scholar
  43. Midgley, G., 2000,Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology and Practice, Contemporary Systems Thinking Series, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  44. Newton, I., 1704,Opticks, B. Cohen, A., Einstein & E. Whittaker, eds., Dover Publications, New York, USA. This edition first published, 1952.Google Scholar
  45. Peirce, C, 1905, “What pragmatism is”,The Monist,15:161–181.Google Scholar
  46. Polanyi, M., 1973,Personal Knowledge, Routledge, London, UK.Google Scholar
  47. Popper, K.R., 1969,Conjectures and Refutations, Routledge, London, UK.Google Scholar
  48. Popper, K.R., 1972,The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London, UK.Google Scholar
  49. Popper, K.R., 1974, “Darwinism as a metaphysical research programme”, in: The Philosophy of Karl Popper, P. Schlipp, ed., Open Court, La Salle, USA.Google Scholar
  50. Popper, K.R., 1979,Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, revised edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  51. Popper, K.R., 1994,The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality, Routledge, London, UK.Google Scholar
  52. Quine, W.V.O., 1953, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, in: From a Logical Point of View, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA.Google Scholar
  53. Ray, C, 2000, “Logical positivism”. in: A Companion to the Philosophy of Science, W.H. Newton-Smith, ed., Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  54. Reichenbach, H., 1920,The Theory of Relativity and A-Priori Knowledge, University of California Press, Berkeley, USA.Google Scholar
  55. Rorty, R., 1979,Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA.Google Scholar
  56. Russell, B., 1912,The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.MATHGoogle Scholar
  57. Salmon, W., 1970, “Bayes theorem and the history of science”, in: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science, R. Stuewer, ed., University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, USA.Google Scholar
  58. Schlick, M., 1915, “Die philosophische bedeutung des relativitatsprinzips”,Zeit Fur Phil. Und Phil Kritik,159:129–175. Translated by P. Heath, 1978, in “Moritz Schlick”,Philosophical Papers.Google Scholar
  59. Schlick, M., 1918,General Theory of Knowledge, Translated by A. Blumberg, 1974.Google Scholar
  60. Trout, J., 2000, “Paradoxes of confirmation”, in: A Companion to the Philosophy of Science, W. Newton-Smith, ed., Blackwell (Blackwell Companions in Philosophy), Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  61. Wittgenstein, L., 1953,Philosophical Investigations, Translated by G. Anscombe, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthews D. 

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations