The Inductive Style

  • Joseph Agassi
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science book series (BSPS, volume 298)


A scientific paper is supposed to be innovative, to comprise a contribution to the stock of human knowledge. The trouble is, we do not know what innovation is, what the stock of human knowledge is, and how the one augments the other. The discovery of the New World is a paradigm case; should we ascribe it to the first humans who crossed the Bering Sea, to the first Vikings who crossed the Atlantic Ocean, to Christopher Columbus, or to Amerigo Vespucci? Each of these options rests on a theory that is hardly articulated, much less open to critical assessment.


General Fact Royal Society Observation Report Mechanical Philosophy Intellectual Satisfaction 
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.


  1. Agassi, Joseph. 1975. Science in flux, Boston studies in the philosophy of science, vol. 28. Dordrecht/Boston/London: D. Reidel Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  2. Agassi, Joseph. 1981. Science and society: Studies in the sociology of science, Boston studies in the philosophy of science, vol. 65. Dordrecht/Boston/London: D. Reidel Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  3. Barbara, Ehrenreich, and Deirdre English. 2010. Witches, midwives, and nurses: A history of women healers, 2nd ed. New York: Feminist Press, CUNY.Google Scholar
  4. Boyle, Robert, and Thomas Birch (eds.). 1744, 1771. Works.Google Scholar
  5. Boyle, Robert, Michael Hunter, and Edward Davis (eds.). 1999, 2000. Works. London: Pickering.Google Scholar
  6. Buchdahl, Gerd. 1966. Review of Marie Boas Hall Robert Boyle on natural philosophy. The British Journal for the History of Science 3: 82–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bunge, Mario. 1960. The place of induction in science. Philosophy of Science 27: 262–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cajori, Florian. 1899, 1929. History of physics. New York: MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  9. Carnap, Rudolf. 1950. The logical foundations of probability. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cloos, Christopher Michael. 2010. Against the total evidence requirement.
  11. Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. 1845. Introduction to Encyclopedia Metropolitana.Google Scholar
  12. Conner, Clifford D. 2005. A people’s history of science: Miners, midwives, and “Low mechanicks”. New York: Avalon.Google Scholar
  13. DeMeo, James. 2001. Dayton Miller’s Ether-Drift experiments: A fresh look. Infinite Energy Magazine, 35.Google Scholar
  14. Einstein, Albert. 1950. Out of my late years. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
  15. Fitzhugh, Kirk. 2006. The ‘requirement of total evidence’ and its role in phylogenetic systematics. Biology and Philosophy 21: 309–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fulton, John Farquhar. 1932. Robert Boyle and his influence on thought in the seventeenth century. Isis 18: 77–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galilei, Galileo. (1632) 1953. Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems (trans: Stillman Drake, forward by Albert Einstein). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hall, Marie Boas. 1952. The establishment of the mechanical philosophy. Osiris 10: 412–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall, Marie Boas. 1987. Boyle’s method of work: Promoting his corpuscular philosophy. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 41: 111–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall, Marie Boas. 1992. Frederick Slate, F.R.S. (1648–1727), Notes and Records Royal Society London 46: 23–61.Google Scholar
  21. Harris, Marvin. 1968. The rise of anthropological theory: A history of theories of culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Harwood, John T. (ed.). 1991. The early essays and ethics of Robert Boyle. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hazard, Paul. 1954. European thought in the eighteenth century: From Montesquieu to Lessing. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Herschel, John. 1831. A preliminary discourse on the study of natural philosophy. London: Longmans.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hobbes, Thomas. 1680. Considerations upon the reputation, loyalty, manners, and religion, of Thomas Hobbes, written by himself, by the way of a letter to a learned person (John Wallis). London: Crooke.Google Scholar
  26. Hooke, Robert. 1705. In The Posthumous works of Robert Hooke, ed. Richard Waller. London.Google Scholar
  27. Hunter, Michael. 1989. Establishing the new science: The experience of the early Royal Society. Woodbridge: Suffolk, Boydell and Brewer.Google Scholar
  28. Hunter, Michael (ed.). 1994. Robert Boyle reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hunter, Michael. 1995. Science and the shape of Orthodoxy: Intellectual change in late seventeenth-century Britain. Bury St. Edmunds: St. Edmundsbury Press.Google Scholar
  30. Liebig, Justus von. 1863. Bacon as a natural philosopher, Macmillan’s Magazine.Google Scholar
  31. McLaughlin, Andrew. 1970. Rationality and total evidence. Philosophy of Science 37: 271–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mulligan, Lotte, and Glenn Mulligan. 1981. Reconstructing restoration science: Styles of leadership and social composition of the early Royal Society. Social Studies of Science 11: 327–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Musgrave, Alan. 1976. Method or madness. In Cohen and P. K. Feyerabend, 457–92.Google Scholar
  34. Nicolson, Marjorie Hope. 1930. The Conway letters: The correspondence of Anne, Viscountess Conway. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Pera, Marcello. 2006. Karl Popper’s ‘third way’: Public policies for Europe and the West. In Jarvie et al., 273–80.Google Scholar
  36. Petty, William. 1674. The discourse made before the Royal Society the 26 of November 1674. Concerning the use of duplicate proportion in sundry important particulars: Together with a new hypothesis of springing or elastique motions. Republished in (Hull 1899).Google Scholar
  37. Polanyi, Michael. 1951. The logic of liberty. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Polanyi, Michael. 1966. The tacit dimension. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Popper, Karl R. 1935, 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  40. Popper, Karl R. 1962, 2002. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Priestley, Josep. 1781. Experiments and observations on different kinds of air, 3rd ed. London: Johnson.Google Scholar
  42. Prior, Moody E. 1932. Joseph Glanvill, witchcraft, and seventeenth-century science. Modern Philology 30: 167–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Quine, W.V.O. 1988. A comment on Agassi’s remarks. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 19: 117–118.Google Scholar
  44. Reilly, Conor. 1962. Francis line, peripatetic (1595–1675). Osiris 14: 222–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rigaud, S.J. 1841. Seventeenth century correspondence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Roth, Julius A. 1966. Hired hand research. The American Sociologist 1: 190–196.Google Scholar
  47. Rowbottom, Margaret. 1950. The earliest published writing of Robert Boyle, ‘Philaretus to Empiricus’. Annals of Science 6: 376–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sabra, A.I. 1981. Theories of light from Descartes to Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Sarton, George. 1950. Boyle and Bayle: The sceptical chemist and the sceptical historian. Chymia 3: 155–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shapin, Steven. 1993. Review of John T. Harwood, The early essays and ethics of Robert Boyle. The British Journal for the History of Science 26: 333–345.Google Scholar
  51. von Helmholtz, Hermann. 1847. Über die Erhaltung der Kraft. Berlin: Reiner.Google Scholar
  52. von Mises, Ludwig. 1957. Theory and history: An interpretation of social and economic evolution. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Weld, Charles R. 1848. History of the Royal Society. London: Parker.Google Scholar
  54. Woodger, Joseph Henry. (1929) 1967. Biological principles: A critical study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tel Aviv University and York University TorontoHerzliyahIsrael

Personalised recommendations