Advertisement

Is There a Scientific Method? The Analytic Model of Science

  • Carlo Cellucci
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics book series (SAPERE, volume 27)

Abstract

The nature of the scientific method has been a main concern of philosophy from Plato to Mill. In that period logic has been considered to be a part of the methodology of science. Since Mill, however, the situation has completely changed. Logic has ceased to be a part of the methodology of science, and no Discourse on method has been written. Both logic and the methodology of science have stopped dealing with the process of discovery, and generally with the actual process of scientific research. As a result, several first-rate scientists, from Feynman and Weinberg to Dyson and Hawkins, have concluded that philosophy has become useless and totally irrelevant to science. The aim of this paper is to give some indications as to how to develop a logic concerned with the process of discovery and a methodology of science dealing with the actual process of scientific research.

Keywords

Correspondence Theory Incompleteness Theorem Deductive Rule Axiomatic Method Secure Foundation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Agassi, J. (1980). The rationality of discovery. In T. Nickles (Ed.), Scientific discovery, logic, and rationality (pp. 185–199). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bacon, F. (1961–1963). Works. Stuttgart–Bad Cannstatt: Frommann Holzboog.Google Scholar
  3. Boger, G. (2004). Aristotle’s underlying logic. In D. M. Gabbay & J. Woods (Eds.), Handbook of the history of logic (Vol. 1, pp. 101–246). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  4. Bostock, D. (2009). Philosophy of mathematics. An introduction. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Carnap, R. (1966). Philosophical foundations of physics. An introduction to the philosophy of science. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  6. Cellucci, C. (2013a). Rethinking logic. Logic in relation to mathematics, evolution, and method. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Cellucci, C. (2013b). Philosophy of mathematics. Making a fresh start. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 44, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cellucci, C. (2014). Rethinking philosophy. Philosophia, 42, 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cellucci, C. (2016). Models of science and models in science. In E. Ippoliti, F. Sterpetti, & T. Nickles (Eds.), Models and inferences in science (pp. 95–112). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dieudonné, J. (1971). David Hilbert (1862–1943). In F. Le Lionnais (Ed.), Great currents of mathematical thought (pp. 304–311). Mineola: Dover.Google Scholar
  11. Dummett, M. (2010). The nature and future of philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Frege, G. (1959). The foundations of arithmetic. A logico-mathematical enquiry into the concept of number. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Frege, G. (1964). The basic laws of arithmetic. Exposition of the system. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. Frege, G. (1967). Begriffsschrift, a formula language, modeled upon that of arithmetic, for pure thought. In J. van Heijenoort (Ed.), From Frege to Gödel. A source book in mathematical logic, 1879–1931 (pp. 5–82). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Frege, G. (1979). Posthumous writings. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Hempel, C. G. (2001). The philosophy of Carl G. Hempel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hilbert, D. (1902–1903). Über den Satz von der Gleichheit der Basiswinkel im gleichschenkligen Dreieck. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 35, 50–68.Google Scholar
  18. Hilbert, D. (1967). On the infinite. In J. van Heijenoort (Ed.), From Frege to Gödel. A source book in mathematical logic, 1879–1931 (pp. 369–392). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hilbert, D. (1996a). On the concept of number. In W. Ewald (Ed.), From Kant to Hilbert. A source book in the foundations of mathematics (pp. 1092–1095). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hilbert, D. (1996b). The new grounding of mathematics. First report. In W. Ewald (Ed.), From Kant to Hilbert. A source book in the foundations of mathematics (pp. 1117–1134). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hilbert, D. (1996c). The logical foundations of mathematics. In W. Ewald (Ed.), From Kant to Hilbert. A source book in the foundations of mathematics (pp. 1134–1148). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kant, I. (1992). Lectures on logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kowalski, R. (2001). Is logic really dead or only just sleeping? In P. Codognet (Ed.), Logic programming: 17th international conference, ICLP 2001 (pp. 2–3). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lakatos, I. (1978). Philosophical papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Laudan, L. (1981). A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science, 48, 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Novalis (von Hardenberg, G. F. P.). (2007). Notes for a Romantic encyclopedia. Das Allgemeine Brouillon. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  27. Pappus of Alexandria. (1876–1878). Collectio. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
  28. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge. An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Popper, K. R. (1996). In search of a better world. Lectures and essays from thirty years. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Popper, K. R. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Proclus Diadocus. (1992). In primum Euclidis Elementorum librum commentarii. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
  32. Putnam, H. (1975–1983). Philosophical papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Smith, R. (2011). Aristotle’s logic. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).Google Scholar
  34. Striker, G. (2009). Introduction. In Aristotle, Prior Analytics. Book I (pp. xi–xviii). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Whewell, W. (1847). The philosophy of the inductive sciences, founded upon their history. London: Parker.Google Scholar
  36. Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophical investigations. New York: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophySapienza University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations