The Dilemma of Case Studies

Toward a Heraclitian Philosophy of Science
Chapter
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 3)

Abstract

After Kuhn (1962) cast doubt on the usefulness of abstract positivist models by appealing to the history of science, many philosophers have felt compelled to use historical case studies in their analyses. Kuhn however did not tell us how to do this. Further, it is not clear exactly what appeals to case studies accomplish. We can frame this issue as a dilemma. On the one hand, if the case is selected because it exemplifies the philosophical point being articulated, then it is not clear that the philosophical claims have been supported, because it could be argued that the historical data were manipulated to fit the point. On the other hand, if one starts with a case study, it is not clear where to go from there – for it is unreasonable to generalize from one case or even two or three.

Keywords

Historical Context Explanatory Framework Scientific Observation Historical Explanation Philosophical Point 
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. Biagioli, M. 1993. Galileo Courtier; the Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Butterfield, H. 1931. The Whig Interpretation of History. London: G. Bell.Google Scholar
  3. Galison, P. 1998. Image and Logic; a Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Goodman, N. 1953. Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hanson, N.R. 1961. Patterns of Discovery; an Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Kuhn, T. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Lakatos, I. 1971. “History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions”. In John W. and Gregory C. eds., The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Philosophical Papers Volume I. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Pitt, J.C. 1992. “Problematics in the History of Philosophy”. Synthese, 92, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pitt, J.C. 2007. “Seeing Nature; Origins of Scientific Observation,” published as “La vision de la nature: emergence de l’observation scientifique”. In Burian R.M. and Gayon J. eds., Conceptions De La Science: Hier, Aujourd’hui Et Demain. Paris: Ousia.Google Scholar
  10. Redondi, P. 1987. Galileo Heretic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Shea, W. 1972. Galileo’s Intellectual Revolution; Middle Period 1610–1632. New York, NY: Science History Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations