Logic List Mailing Archive

"Testing Philosophical Theories Against the History of Science"

21 Sep 2015
Oulu, Finland

"Testing Philosophical Theories Against the History of Science" Workshop 
(Call for Papers)

A one-day workshop, 21st September 2015, organised by: The Oulu Centre for 
Theoretical and Philosophical Studies of 
History<https://owa.dur.ac.uk/owa/14.3.210.2/scripts/premium/redir.aspx?C=sN0TuErTqEe9Ejs7xyFVh1Q1sTGoGdII5SAeibJgVmDwaMQGoAfYwEmgvZEhsSx3nGQEqxzk9TQ.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.oulu.fi%2fcentreforphilosophyofhistory>, 
and the AHRC project 'Contemporary Scientific Realism and the Challenge 
from the History of 
Science<https://owa.dur.ac.uk/owa/14.3.210.2/scripts/premium/redir.aspx?C=sN0TuErTqEe9Ejs7xyFVh1Q1sTGoGdII5SAeibJgVmDwaMQGoAfYwEmgvZEhsSx3nGQEqxzk9TQ.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fcommunity.dur.ac.uk%2fevaluating.realism%2findex.html>'?.

Location: Oulu Centre for Theoretical and Philosophical Studies of 
History, Faculty of Humanities, University of Oulu, Finland

Keynote Speakers

James McAllister (Leiden)
Helge Kragh (Aarhus)
Katherina Kinzel (Vienna)
Bart Karstens (Amsterdam)

This event is designed to bring together historians and philosophers of 
science, and abstracts are most welcome from both disciplines. Abstracts 
of no more than 500 words should be emailed to peter.vickers@durham.ac.uk, 
by 1st May 2015 at the latest.

Decisions will be made very soon thereafter. Some of the 
travel/accommodation costs of accepted speakers will be covered, but 
speakers should expect to cover some of the costs through their home 
institution. Please email Jouni-Matti Kuukkanen at 
Jouni-Matti.Kuukkanen@oulu.fi or peter.vickers@durham.ac.uk if you require 
further details.

Summary and themes of the meeting

Ever since philosophers first started formulating theories of science 
those theories have been compared with (reconstructions of) episodes in 
the history of science. The thought is that descriptive theories need to 
match 'what really happens' in science, and that even normative theories 
need to match up with what happens in good science. Such comparisons have 
led to a wide variety of different conclusions. At one end of the scale 
the reconstruction is taken to be 'accurate', and, since it speaks 
contrary to the theory of science put forward, the conclusion reached is 
that the historyfalsifies the philosophy. At the other end of the scale 
the reconstruction is taken to be just one possible reconstruction amongst 
several others, such that how it bears on the philosophy is much less 
clear. It has also sometimes been suggested that the whole project of 
comparing philosophical theories with the history of science is misguided.

On this issue one finds heated discussion in the 1960s and 70s, when some 
sought to turn philosophy into a testable enterprise, with history taking 
the place of scientific experiment. Whilst the more radical 
interpretations of this idea quickly fell out of favour, more moderate 
versions are still very much alive today. Indeed, much philosophy of 
science is 'case study based', and thus premised on the idea that bringing 
history of science to bear on philosophy of science can teach us important 
lessons. But more recently Jutta Schickore (2011) has taken issue with 
this 'confrontation model', on the grounds that all history of science 
requires a perspective.

The purpose of this workshop is to bring this debate back to the table, 
assessing it in light of the fact that so many contemporary debates in the 
philosophy of science make implicit assumptions about how history of 
science can bear on philosophy of science. Key questions will be:

(i) Which philosophical theories (if any) truly can be tested by the 
history of science?

(ii) Under what circumstances is one reconstruction 'better' than another? 
How can we tell?

(iii) What are we to make of a philosophical theory which is consistent 
with one reconstruction of a particular historical episode, but 
inconsistent with another?

(iv) Is Schickore (2011) right to claim that the model of 'confronting' 
philosophical theories with historical data is "highly problematic and 
should be abandoned"?


Please find more information on this workshop at 
http://community.dur.ac.uk/evaluating.realism/events03.html<https://owa.dur.ac.uk/owa/14.3.210.2/scripts/premium/redir.aspx?C=sN0TuErTqEe9Ejs7xyFVh1Q1sTGoGdII5SAeibJgVmDwaMQGoAfYwEmgvZEhsSx3nGQEqxzk9TQ.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fcommunity.dur.ac.uk%2fevaluating.re
alism%2fevents03.html>


Best,

Yafeng

Yafeng Shan
Research Assistant
Department of Philosophy
Durham University