Document Type
Journal article
Source Publication
Synthese
Publication Date
4-1-2014
Volume
191
Issue
6
First Page
1211
Last Page
1221
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Keywords
Aim of science, Constructive empiricism, Scientific progress, Scientific realism, van Fraassen
Abstract
This paper argues that talk of 'the aim of science' should be avoided in the philosophy of science, with special reference to the way that van Fraassen sets up the difference between scientific realism and constructive empiricism. It also argues that talking instead of 'what counts as success in science as such' is unsatisfactory. The paper concludes by showing what this talk may be profitably replaced with, namely specific claims concerning science that fall into the following categories: descriptive, evaluative, normative, and definitional. There are two key advantages to this proposal. First, realism and its competitors may be understood to consist of highly nuanced variants. Second, scientific realism and its competitors may be understood as something other than 'all or nothing' theses about science. More particularly, one may accept that there are general claims concerning science in some of the identified categories, but deny that there are such claims in the others.
DOI
10.1007/s11229-013-0319-8
Print ISSN
00397857
E-ISSN
15730964
Publisher Statement
Copyright © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Access to external full text or publisher's version may require subscription.
Full-text Version
Pre-print
Language
English
Recommended Citation
Rowbottom, D. P. (2014). Aimless science. Synthese, 191(6), 1211-1221. doi: 10.1007/s11229-013-0319-8