The determination of theory by evidence: The case for quantum discontinuity, 1900–1915

Synthese 97 (1):1 - 31 (1993)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The thesis that observation necessarily fails to determine theory is false in the sense that observation can provide overwhelming evidence for a particular theory or even a hypothesis within the theory. The saga of quantum discontinuity illustrates the power of evidence to determine theory and shows how that power can be underestimated by inadequate caricatures of the evidential case. That quantum discontinuity can save the phenomena of black body radiation is the widely known result, but it leaves open the possibilities of other accounts. That these phenomena, with the aid of minimal assumptions, entail quantum discontinuity is the crucial but now largely forgotten result. It was first demonstrated by Ehrenfest and Poincaré in 1911 and 1912.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
122 (#144,494)

6 months
6 (#504,917)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

John D. Norton
University of Pittsburgh

Citations of this work

A material theory of induction.John D. Norton - 2003 - Philosophy of Science 70 (4):647-670.
A little survey of induction.John D. Norton - 2005 - In Peter Achinstein (ed.), Scientific Evidence: Philosophical Theories and Applications. pp. 9-34.
Science and certainty.John D. Norton - 1994 - Synthese 99 (1):3 - 22.

View all 19 citations / Add more citations