Conceptual dimensions of theory appraisal

After arguing that Laudan's account of the role of conceptual considerations in theory appraisal is inadequate and unsatisfying in a number of respects, I suggest some of the ways in which we might move to develop an alternative account. This alternative presupposes a problem-solving methodology and, unlike the Laudanian approach, awards a crucial role to empirical research in the resolution of the conceptual problems troubling a theory. Three ways in which a theory may enhance the conceptual resources which it supplies for empirical problem-solving are considered: the fine-tuning of theoretical concepts; the appropriation of the conceptual resources of theories in other domains; and the achievement of greater consilience. Reference is made to several historical cases in which such enhancement actually occurred.     

Relations between Karl Popper and Michael Polanyi

Karl Popper and Michael Polanyi grew up in central Europe and, having escaped from Nazism, went on to pursue academic careers in Britain where they wrote prolifically on science and politics. Popper and Polanyi corresponded with each other, and met for discussions in the late 1940s and early 50s, but they seldom referred to each other in their publications. This article examines their correspondence so as to produce a picture of their intellectual relations. The most important of the letters was one that Popper wrote in 1952, which we reproduce in its entirety, indicating his dissatisfaction with ideas that Polanyi had expressed in a paper of that year, ‘The Stability of Beliefs’. In this paper, Polanyi used the example of the framework of Zande witchcraft to shed analogical light on science and other systems of belief, arguing that ‘frameworks of belief’ equip their adherents with intellectual powers whose use reinforces commitment to the framework, inoculating adherents against criticism. Polanyi’s 1952 paper and his 1951 and 1952 Gifford Lectures (to which that paper is intimately tied) are the first articulation of Polanyi’s sharp rejection of the modern critical philosophical tradition that by implication included Popper’s philosophical ideas. The 1952 paper is also part of Polanyi’s constructive philosophical effort to set forth a fiduciary philosophy emphasizing commitment. Popper regarded Polanyi’s position as implying cognitive relativism and irrationalism, and from the time of Polanyi’s 1952 paper their personal relationship became strained. Discord between them became publicly manifest when Polanyi subtitled his book Personal Knowledge (1958), Towards a post-critical philosophy, and Popper lambasted the idea of a ‘post-critical’ philosophy in his Preface in The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959).     

The role of heuristic appraisal in conflicting assessments of string theory

Over the last three decades, string theory has emerged as one of the leading hopes for a consistent theory of quantum gravity that unifies particle physics with general relativity. Despite the fact that string theory has been a thriving research program for the better part of three decades, it has been subjected to extensive criticism from a number of prominent physicists. The aim of this paper is to obtain a clearer picture of where the conflict lies in competing assessments of string theory, through a close reading of the argumentative strategies employed by protagonists on both sides. Although it has become commonplace to construe this debate as stemming from different attitudes to the absence of testable predictions, we argue that this presents an overly simplified view of the controversy, which ignores the critical role of heuristic appraisal. While string theorists and their defenders see the theoretical achievements of the string theory program as providing strong indication that it is ‘on the right track’, critics have challenged such claims, by calling into question the status of certain ‘solved problems’ and its purported ‘explanatory coherence’. The debates over string theory are therefore particularly instructive from a philosophical point of view, not only because they offer important insights into the nature of heuristic appraisal and theoretical progress, but also because they raise deep questions about what constitutes a solved problem and an explanation in fundamental physics.     

Kuhn, Popper, and the Superconducting Supercollider

The demise of the Superconducting Supercollider (SSC) is often explained in terms of the strain that it placed on the federal budget of the United States, and change in national security interests with the end of the Cold War. Recent work by Steve Fuller provides a framework to re-examine this episode in epistemological terms using the work of Kuhn and Popper. Using this framework, it is tempting to explain the demise as resulting from the overly Kuhnian character of its proponents, who supposedly argued for its construction by appealing to the importance of testing the predictions of a specific paradigm (i.e. the Standard Model). On this reading, the SSC case appears as an example of how Kuhn’s paradigm-driven view of science was invoked to keep science closed and autonomous from society. I argue that the SSC episode should not be viewed as giving support to the displacement of Kuhn’s view of science for Popper’s, and that such a displacement is detrimental to the project of integrating discussion on science into the public sphere. Drawing upon Rouse and Wimsatt, I argue that understanding paradigms as practices blunts some criticisms against Kuhn’s model, and that his model should play an important epistemological role in the aforementioned project.     

Van Fraassen meets Popper: Logical relations and cognitive abilities

Van Fraassen, like Popper before him, assumes that confirmation and disconfirmation relations are logical relations and thus hold only among abstract items. This raises a problem about how experience, for Popper, and observables, for van Fraassen, enter into epistemic evaluations. Each philosopher offers a drastic proposal: Popper holds that basic statements are accepted by convention; van Fraassen introduces his “pragmatic tautology.” Another alternative is to reject the claim that all evaluative relations are logical relations. Ayer proposed this option in responding to Popper, as did Sosa in a different context. I argue that this option should be pursued and propose a line of research that the option suggests.     

Popper and Dingle on special relativity and the issue of symmetry

Karl Popper and Herbert Dingle engaged in a fascinating debate concerning the kind of theory the special theory of relativity is. One of the issues was whether applications of the theory could be made consistent with the principle of relativity, a cornerstone of the theory itself. The principle of relativity seems to imply some sort of symmetry in results obtained for similar experiments as observed in two different inertial reference frames. Peter Hayes has recently dealt with the Dingle–Popper debate on this matter, as well as other issues. The present paper seeks to clarify what kind of symmetry is appropriate in a situation discussed by Popper, Dingle, and Hayes.     

A tale of three theories: Feyerabend and Popper on progress and the aim of science

In this paper, three theories of progress and the aim of science are discussed: (i) the theory of progress as increasing explanatory power, advocated by Popper in The logic of scientific discovery (1935/1959); (ii) the theory of progress as approximation to the truth, introduced by Popper in Conjectures and refutations (1963); (iii) the theory of progress as a steady increase of competing alternatives, which Feyerabend put forward in the essay “Reply to criticism. Comments on Smart, Sellars and Putnam” (1965) and defended as late as the last edition of Against method (1993). It is argued that, contrary to what Feyerabend scholars have predominantly assumed, Feyerabend's changing attitude towards falsificationism—which he often advocated at the beginning of his career, and vociferously attacked in the 1970s and 1980s—must be explained by taking into account not only Feyerabend's very peculiar view of the aim of science, but also Popper's changing account of progress.     

Kuhn vs. Popper on criticism and dogmatism in science: a resolution at the group level

Popper repeatedly emphasised the significance of a critical attitude, and a related critical method, for scientists. Kuhn, however, thought that unquestioning adherence to the theories of the day is proper; at least for ‘normal scientists’. In short, the former thought that dominant theories should be attacked, whereas the latter thought that they should be developed and defended (for the vast majority of the time).Both seem to have missed a trick, however, due to their apparent insistence that each individual scientist should fulfil similar functions (at any given point in time). The trick is to consider science at the group level; and doing so shows how puzzle solving and ‘offensive’ critical activity can simultaneously have a legitimate place in science. This analysis shifts the focus of the debate. The crucial question becomes ‘How should the balance between functions be struck?’     

New tools for theory choice and theory diagnosis

Theory choice can be approached in at least four ways. One of these calls for the application of decision theory, and this article endorses this approach. But applying standard forms of decision theory imposes an overly demanding standard of numeric information, supposedly satisfied by point-valued utility and probability functions. To ameliorate this difficulty, a version of decision theory that requires merely comparative utilities and plausibilities is proposed. After a brief summary of this alternative, the article illustrates how comparative decision theory affords a rational reconstruction of decisions made by exemplary scientists in two cases of theory choice: Buffon’s law and the luminiferous ether. It also offers a rational reconstruction of two cases of theory diagnosis: Mendeleev’s anomalies and the Pioneer anomaly.     

Radicals and types: A critical comparison of the methodologies of Popper and Lakatos and their use in the reconstruction of some 19th century chemistry

Research programmes associated with two nineteenth-century chemical theories, Radical Theory and the Theory of Types are discussed. The purpose is to examine in a very general way how well the methodologies of Popper and Lakatos can account for the development of these programmes. The chemical discussion is prefaced by a critical comparison of certain aspects of the two above-mentioned philosophies.     

Semiconduction theory

Conclusions The semiconducting properties of biomacromolecules are a certainty which cannot be neglected when models are proposed for explaining some biological function such as, enzymatic activity of cytochrome oxidase, olfactory transduction, visual reception, properties of the cellular membranes, etc.^6,7,9. Although a perfect correlation does not yet exist between the results of molecular orbital calculations and experimental data regarding the electrical conduction in proteins and nucleic acids⁹, a profound study on the aspects connected with intrinsic mechanisms of conduction in biomacromolecules, as well as on dependence of electrical properties on the impurities acting in vivo, should increase our understanding of biophysical phenomena.     

The use of growth curves in forecasting market development—a review and appraisal

The growth curves suitable for forecasting market development are identified and described. The underlying theoretical basis, if any, for their use is examined, and published examples of their applications are given. Doubt is cast on the value of long-term forecasts derived from growth curves applied to markets for consumables. The problems of choice between competing curves are demonstrated by means of some examples. The requirements that a growth curve should meet in order to be an appropriate forecasting tool are identified and illustrated. Many of the published examples of growth curve use are shown to be vulnerable to criticism under one or more of these criteria.     

Kuhn on incommensurability and theory choice

The incommensurability of two theories seems to problematize theory comparisons, which allow for the selection of the better of the two theories. If so, it becomes puzzling how the quality of theories can improve with time, i.e. how science can progress across changes in incommensurable theories. I argue that in papers published in the 1990s, Kuhn provided a novel way to resolve this apparent tension between incommensurability and scientific progress. He put forward an account of their compatibility which worked not by downplaying the negative consequences of incommensurability but instead by allowing them to reach their natural end: a process of specialisation. This development in Kuhn’s thought has yet to be properly recorded but it is also interesting in its own right. It shows how a robust version of incommensurability—one which really does have severe negative consequences for scientists’ capacity to perform comparative evaluations of incommensurable theories—need make no puzzle of the progress of science.