Advertisement

PSA 1974 pp 487-498 | Cite as

Velikovsky Versus Academic Lag (The Problem of Hypothesis)

  • A. M. Paterson
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 32)

Abstract

Professor E. A. Burtt 1 suggested that we might add “tertiary” qualities to our primary and secondary qualities when we undertake an analysis of reality. These tertiary qualities are the ones embodied in the human institutions of the world. He suggests that we may be arranging nature with our methodologies due to main conditions in us rather than due to main conditions in nature. Nothing can provide the satisfactory generalized concept of the world that does not entail extensive historical analysis of the major factors that have conditioned us, according to Burtt. The new cosmology would hardly be worth the effort, if it were merely the synthesis of scientific data or the logical criticism of the basic assumptions of that data, for Burtt. Sound insight must supplement scientific data and its assumptions, through the reasoned expression of the intellectual insight of all the ages. He goes on to point out that we see readily the role that wishful thinking has played in older methodologies, but we do not understand the role that wishful thinking plays in our own methodologies. The mechano-morphic period was absorbed in the mathematical nature of physical motion: they ignored the ultimate suppositions that they used in order to frame their laws and their hypotheses. Clarification is necessary and cannot proceed without the historical studies that can expose the fundamental motives and human factors in each of the characteristic analyses that have been adopted. In choosing between hypotheses of two kinds, the tertiary qualities are at work in us. The rise and fall of scholarly interests is conditioned by factors as yet totally unexplored. Burtt goes on to state that though science may reject final cause, it does harbor in its fundamental categories functioning values or tertiary qualities that remain completely unseen. A comparative study of the different stages of the growth of scientific thinking would throw light on the nature of our models of the universe and the tertiary qualities of the structure of contemporary scientific procedure.

Keywords

Wishful Thinking Scientific Thinking Scientific Hypothesis Critical Philosophy Metaphysical Assumption 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Benjamin, A. Cornelius: 1965, Science, Technology, and Human Values, University of Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri.Google Scholar
  2. Bridgman, P. W.: 1959, The Way Things Are, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Burtt, E. A.: 1932, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science, Doubleday, Garden City, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, Norman Robert: 1957, Foundations of Science, Dover, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Dampier-Whetham, William Cecil Dampier: 1929, A History of Science, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Evans, Herbert M. (ed.): 1959, Men and Moments in the History of Science, University of Washington Press, Seattle.Google Scholar
  7. Farber, Marvin: 1959, Naturalism and Subjectivism, Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, Springfield, Illinois.Google Scholar
  8. Friedlander, Ernst: 1965, Psychology in Scientific Thinking, Philosophical Library, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Haldane, J. B. S.: 1951, Everything Has a History, George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., London.Google Scholar
  10. Helmholtz, Hermann von: 1904, Popular Lectures on Scientific Subjects, Longmans, Green, and Co., New York.Google Scholar
  11. Humphreys, Willard C: 1968, Anomalies and Scientific Theories, Freeman, Cooper & Company, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  12. Jordan, Pascual: 1955, Science and the Course of History, translated by Ralph Manheim, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  13. Kemeny, John G.: 1959, A Philosopher Looks at Science, D. van Nostrand, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  14. Maslow, Abraham H.: 1966, The Psychology of Science, Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Müller, Herbert J.: 1943, Science and Criticism, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  16. Ornstein, Martha: 1928, The Role of Scientific Societies in the Seventeenth Century, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  17. Scheffler, Israel: 1967, The Anatomy of Inquiry: Philosophical Studies in the Theory of Science, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Struik, Dirk J.: 1957, The Origins of American Science, Cameron Associates, New York. Original title: Yankee Science in the Making, 1948.Google Scholar
  19. Struik, Dirk J.: 1962, Yankee Science in the Making, new, revised edition, Collier Books, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Taylor, Lloyd W.: 1941, Physics: the Pioneer Science, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.Google Scholar
  21. Wiesner, Jerome B.: 1961, Where Science and Politics Meet, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Williams, Henry Smith: 1904, A History of Science, assisted by Edward H. Williams, Vols. 1–5, Harper & Brothers, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. M. Paterson
    • 1
  1. 1.State University of New York College at BuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations