Votsis, Ioannis (2007) Making Contact with Observations. In: UNSPECIFIED.
This is the latest version of this item.
In this paper I argue contrary to Bogen and Woodward that data serve as evidence for theories, not only for phenomena. Bogen and Woodward seem to forget the old Duhemian dictum that ‘theories cannot be tested in isolation’. That is, they seem to forget that theories require the help of auxiliary hypotheses to make contact with data. When augmented with suitable auxiliaries, theories do entail, predict and potentially explain the data. I say ‘potentially explain the data’ because my focus in this paper is only on the inferential and predictive relations between theories, phenomena and data. To demonstrate my claim I examine four cases from physics, chemistry and astronomy: (i) a controversy between Lavoisier and Priestley, (ii) the calculation of lead’s melting point, (iii) the prediction of the Poisson spot and (iv) the discovery of Neptune.
|Export/Citation:||EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL|
|Item Type:||Conference or Workshop Item (UNSPECIFIED)|
|Keywords:||observation, data, phenomena, evidence, theory, theory-ladenness, novel prediction, Lavoisier, Priestley, melting point of led, Poisson spot, Neptune.|
|Subjects:||General Issues > Confirmation/Induction
General Issues > Structure of Theories
General Issues > Theory Change
General Issues > Theory/Observation
General Issues > History of Science Case Studies
General Issues > Realism/Anti-realism
|Depositing User:||Ioannis Votsis|
|Date Deposited:||01 Jun 2009|
|Last Modified:||07 Oct 2010 15:18|
Available Versions of this Item
Making Contact with Observations. (deposited 19 Dec 2007)
- Making Contact with Observations. (deposited 01 Jun 2009) [Currently Displayed]
Monthly Views for the past 3 years
Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years
Actions (login required)