Skip to main content

CONCEPT FORMATION AND THE LIMITS OF JUSTIFICATION: “DISCOVERING” THE TWO ELECTRICITIES

  • Chapter
Revisiting Discovery and Justification

Part of the book series: Archimedes ((ARIM,volume 14))

Abstract

In this essay, I examine the possible use of the distinction between discovery and justification for the analysis of research practice, and what we can learn, in turn, from this analysis for an assessment of the uses and limits of this distinction. First, I illustrate that nonstandard uses of experiments and processes of concept formation reveal the “process-interpretation” of the DJ distinction as inappropriate. Turning to what is often regarded as the core of the DJ distinction—the differentiation between genesis and validity—I shall focus on the role it plays within science. Moreover, by taking processes of concept formation seriously, new and hitherto unrecognized limits of justification become visible. In particular, justification turns out to be more genuinely bound to history than is usually assumed. To illustrate and flesh out my general claims, I shall first provide an analysis of a specific historical episode: the purported “discovery” of the two electricities in the 1730s.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  • Bose, Georg Matthias (1744), Tentamina electrica in academiis regiis Londinensi et Parisana primum habita, omni studio repetita (Wittenberg: Johann Ahlfeld).

    Google Scholar 

  • Doppelmayr, Johann Gabriel (1744), Neu-entdeckte Phaenomena von bewunderungswürdigen ürkungen der Natur (Nürnberg).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dufay, Charles François de Cisternai (1733), “Quatrième mémoire sur l ' électricité. De l ' attraction et répulsion des corps électriques”, Histoire de I ' Académie Royale des Sciences, avec les Mémoires de Mathématique & de Physique pour la m ême année: pp. 457–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dufay, Charles Fran,cois de Cisternai (1734), “A Letter from Mons. Du Fay, F. R. S. and of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris, to His Grace Charles Duke of Richmond and Lenox, concerning Electricity. Translated from the French by T. S.MD.”, Philosophical Transactions 38(431): 258–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleck, Ludwik (1935 [1980]), Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleck, Ludwik (1979), Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frercks, Jan (2004), “Disziplinenbildung und Vorlesungsalltag. Funktionen von Lehrbüchern der Physik um 1800 mit einem Fokus auf die Universität Jena”, Berichte zurWissenschaftsgeschichte 27:27–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gralath, Daniel (1747), “Geschichte derElectricität”, Versuche undAbhandlungen derNaturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Danzig 1: 175–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurova, Lilia (2003), “Philosophy of science meets cognitive science: The categorization debate”, in D. Ginev (ed.), Bulgarian Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 236 (Dordrecht: Kluwer), pp. 141–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, Ian (2002), Historical Ontology (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilbron, John L. (1979), Electricity in the 17th and 18th Centuries (Berkeley: University of California Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, François (1997), La souris, la mouche et l ' homme (Paris: Odile Jacob).

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, Ursula (1994), “Origin of the Concept of Chemical Compound.”, Science in Context 7(2): 163–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, Ernst (1883), DieMechanik in ihrerEntwickelung: historisch-kritisch dargestellt. Internationale wissenschaftliche Bibliothek 59 (Leipzig: Brockhaus).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, Ernst (1960), The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of its Development. 6th edn., with revisions through the 9. german ed. Transl. Thomas J. MacCormack, introd. Karl Menger (LaSalle, IL: Open Court Publ.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Musschenbroek, Petrus van and Gottscheden, Johann Christoph (1747), Hrn. Peters von Muschenbroek Grundlehren der Naturwissenschaft, nach der 2. lat. Ausg., nebst einigen neuen Zusätzen des Ver-fassers, ins Deutsche übers. Mit einer Vorrede ans Licht gestellt von Johann Christoph Gottscheden (Leipzig: Kiesewetter).

    Google Scholar 

  • Musschenbroek, Pieter van (1739), Essai de physique-Beginsels der natuurkunde (Leyden: Luchtmans).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prinz, Jesse J. (2002), Furnishing the Mind: Concepts and Their Perceptual Basis. Representation and Mind (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach, Hans (1938), Experience and Prediction: An Analysis ofthe Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapere, Dudley (1980), “The character of scientific change”, in T. Nickles (ed.), Scientific Discovery, Logic and Rationality. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 56 (Dordrecht: Reidel), pp. 61–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Edward E. and Medin, Douglas L. (1981), Categories and Concepts. Cognitive Science Series Vol. 4 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinle, Friedrich (1997), “Entering New Fields: Exploratory Uses of Experimentation”, Philosophy of Science 64 (Supplement): S65–S74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinle, Friedrich (2003), “Experiments in History and Philosophy of Science”, Perspectives on Science 10(4): 408–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinle, Friedrich (2005), Explorative Experimente. Ampere, Faraday und die Ursprünge der Elektro-dynamik. Boethius 50 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag).

    Google Scholar 

  • Whewell, William (1840), The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, Founded Upon Their History (London: Parker).

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Michael (1996), Unnatural Doubts: Epistemological Realism and the Basis of Scepticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, Johann Heinrich (1745), Die Eigenschaften der electrischen Materie und des electrischen Feuers, aus verschiedenen neuen Versuchen erkläret, und, nebst etlichen neuen Maschinen zum Electrisiren beschrieben (Leipzig: Breitkopf).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

STEINLE, F. (2006). CONCEPT FORMATION AND THE LIMITS OF JUSTIFICATION: “DISCOVERING” THE TWO ELECTRICITIES. In: SCHICKORE, J., STEINLE, F. (eds) Revisiting Discovery and Justification. Archimedes, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4251-5_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics