The Aim And Structure Of Methodological Theory

  • Martin Carrier
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 255)


One of the challenges Kuhn’s work poses to philosophy of science concerns the insight that theory-choice and, accordingly, theory-change is governed by a more complex and subtle procedure than anticipated. In particular, this procedure is claimed to inevitably and justifiedly leave room for individual preferences so that theory-choice fails to be determined unambiguously by criteria with epistemic bearing. This methodological uncertainty can be labeled as Kuhn-underdetermination. Unlike Duhem-Quine underdetermination, it does not require empirical equivalence but rather refers to a situation in which alternative theories have their strengths and faults in different areas and in different respects so that no clear overall picture emerges. Overarching methodological theories can be construed as attempts to overcome the limits set by Kuhn underdetermination. In this perspective, theories like Lakatosianism and Bayesianism provide rules for epistemic judgments that are intended to make a clear evaluation of the credentials of rivaling scientific theories possible. The two methodological theories are supposed to serve as guidelines for methodological judgment or at least to explain with hindsight why a particular theory was picked. However, on closer scrutiny the two methodological theories founder in this task of accounting for theory choice decisions. The criteria of excellence they specify are liable to uncertainties of the same sort as the more traditional virtues they are intended to replace. The paper proposes an alternative picture: methodological theories suggest general maxims and rules that guide the confirmation process rather than provide criteria for specific theory-choice decisions. Methodological theories serve to connect and unify such maxims and rules. Traditionally, lists of methodological virtues are drawn up ad hoc. One could easily add further criteria or delete others. By contrast, methodological theories provide a coherent approach to appreciating scientific theories and comparing their explanatory achievements. And they give a rationale for why these rules rather than others deserve to be preferred.


Bayesian confirmation cognitive virtues of theories Copernican revolution Kuhn Kuhn-underdetermination Lakatos methodological incommensurability methodology of scientific research programs 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bloor, D. (1976) Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Carrier, M. (1986) Wissenschaftsgeschichte, rationale Rekonstruktion und die Begründung von Methodologien, Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie,17, 201–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carrier, M. (1998) In Defense of Psychological Laws. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 12, 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carrier, M. (2001) Nikolaus Kopernikus. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  5. Carrier, M. (2002) Explaining Scientific Progress. Lakatos’s Methodological Account of Kuhnian Patterns of Theory Change. In G. Kampis, L. Kvasz and M. Stöltzner (eds.) Appraising Lakatos: Mathematics, Methodology, and the Man (Vienna Circle Library). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 53–71.Google Scholar
  6. Carrier, M. and Mittelstrass, J. (1991) Mind, Brain, Behavior. The Mind-Body Problem and the Philosophy of Psychology. New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. Duhem, P. (1906) The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. New York: Atheneum, 1974.Google Scholar
  8. Earman, J. and Salmon, W. C. (1992) The Confirmation of Scientific Hypotheses. In H. S. Merrilee (ed.) Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 42–103.Google Scholar
  9. Howson, C. and Urbach, P. (1989) Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  10. Hoyningen-Huene, P. (1992) The Interrelations Between the Philosophy, History and Sociology of Science in Thomas Kuhn’s Theory of Scientific Development. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 43, 487–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kosso, P. (1992) Reading the Book of Nature. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kuhn, T. (1957) The Copernican Revolution. Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  13. Kuhn, T. S. (1970a) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kuhn, T. S. (1970b) Reflections on My Critics. In I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 231–278.Google Scholar
  15. Kuhn, T. S. (1977) Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice. In The Essential Tension. Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 320–339.Google Scholar
  16. Kuhn, T. S. (1980) The Halt and the Blind: Philosophy and History of Science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 31, 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lakatos, I. (1970) Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In J. Worrall and G. Currie (eds.) Imre Lakatos. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes (Philosophical Papers I). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978, pp. 8–101.Google Scholar
  18. Lakatos, I. (1971) History of Science and Its Rational Reconstruction. In J. Worrall and G. Currie (eds.) Imre Lakatos. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes (Philosophical Papers I). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978, pp. 102–138.Google Scholar
  19. Lakatos, I. (1973) The Role of Crucial Experiments in Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 4, 309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lakatos, I. (1978) Anomalies Versus ‘Crucial Experiments’. A Rejoinder to Professor Grünbaum. In J. Worrall and G. Currie (eds.) Imre Lakatos. Mathematics, Science and Epistemology (Philosophical Papers II). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 211–223.Google Scholar
  21. Laudan, L. (1977) Progress and its Problems. Toward a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. Laudan, L. (1984) Science and Values. The Aims of Science and their Role in Scientific Debate. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. Nola, R. and Sankey, H. (2000) A Selective Survey of Theories of Scientific Method. In R. Nola and H. Sankey (eds.) After Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend. Recent Issues in Theories of Scientific Method. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 1–65.Google Scholar
  24. Quine, Willard V. O. and Joseph S. Ullian (1978) The Web of Belief. 2nd ed. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  25. Salmon, W. C. (1990) Rationality and Objectivity in Science or Tom Kuhn Meets Tom Bayes. In C. W. Savage (ed.) Scientific Theories (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science XIV). Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota University Press, pp. 175–204.Google Scholar
  26. Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S. (1985) Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Worrall, J. (1993) Falsification, Rationality, and the Duhem Problem. Grünbaum versus Bayes. In John Earman et al. (eds.) Philosophical Problems of the Internal and External Worlds. Essays on the Philosophy of Adolf Grünbaum. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press/Konstanz: Universitätsverlag, pp. 329–370Google Scholar
  28. Worrall, J. (2000) Pragmatic Factors in Theory Acceptance. In W. H. Newton-Smith (ed.) A Companion to the Philosophy of Science. London: Blackwell, pp. 349–357.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Carrier
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyBielefeld UniversityGermany

Personalised recommendations