Foundations of Science 16 (2-3):227-243 (2011)
AbstractInterest the Erklären–Verstehen debate is usually interpreted as primarily epistemological. By raising the possibility that there are fundamentally different methods for fundamentally different types of science, the debate puts into play all the standard issues—that is, issues concerning scientific explanation and justification, the unity and diversity of scientific disciplines, the reality of their subject matter, the accessibility of various subject matters to research, and so on. In this paper, however, I do not focus on any of these specific issues. I start instead from the fact that the very existence of the debate itself is an issue; in fact, it poses a philosophical problem that almost everyone but the hardest line logical empiricists has come to realize cannot be resolved epistemologically. In my view, however, that it cannot be resolved ontologically, either. I think the problem is at bottom hermeneutical, and its resolution requires that we focus first, not on the objects of science or the methods of studying them, but on the character of the philosophical orientation assumed by those who would try to resolve it. In this paper, I explain why I think this is so by analyzing (1) Dilthey’s contribution to the original debate, (2) Husserl’s reaction to Dilthey, and (3) Heidegger’s critical evaluation of both. This line of philosophical development—this movement of self-understanding from critiques of objectivism to hermeneutical phenomenology—is of course already a central feature of much work in continental philosophy of science. In my conclusion, however, I argue for the less well-established—even if apparently approved—idea that it ought to be a central feature of technoscience studies as well
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
The Left Vienna Circle, Part 1. Carnap, Neurath, and the Left Vienna Circle Thesis.Sarah S. Richardson - 2009 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (1):14-24.
The Early Heidegger Phenomenology, Hermeneutics, Lebensphilosophie on His Way to Being and Time: The Confrontation with Husserl, Dilthey, and Jaspers.István Fehér - 1992 - Existentia 2 (1-4):69-96.
Citations of this work
Phenomenology, Ontology, and Quantum Physics.Patrick A. Heelan - 2013 - Foundations of Science 18 (2):379-385.
Book Symposium on Robert P. Crease’s World in the Balance: The Historic Quest for an Absolute System of Measurement: W. W. Norton & Company, 2011. [REVIEW]Jan Kyrre Berg Olsen Friis, Fokko Jan Dijksterhuis, Robert C. Scharff, Donn Welton & Robert P. Crease - 2013 - Philosophy and Technology 26 (2):227-246.
Similar books and articles
The Metaphysical Realism Debate: What is at Stake?Tadeusz Szubka - 2006 - Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 91 (1):301-316.
Beyond Divorce: Current Status of the Discovery Debate.Thomas Nickles - 1985 - Philosophy of Science 52 (2):177-206.
Internalist and Externalist Aspects of Justification in Scientific Inquiry.Kent Staley & Aaron Cobb - 2011 - Synthese 182 (3):475-492.
Naturalized Philosophy of Science with a Plurality of Methods.David Stump - 1992 - Philosophy of Science 59 (3):456-460.
Rethinking Objectivity in Social Science.Eleonora Montuschi - 2004 - Social Epistemology 18 (2-3):109-122.
After Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend: Recent Issues in Theories of Scientific Method.Robert Nola & Howard Sankey (eds.) - 2000 - Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Scientific Theory and Agricultural Practice: Plant Breeding in Germany From the Late 19th to the Early 20th Century. [REVIEW]Thomas Wieland - 2006 - Journal of the History of Biology 39 (2):309 - 343.
Philosophy Versus Science: The Species Debate and the Practice of Taxonomy.Alan G. Gross - 1988 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:223 - 230.
When Does the Co-Evolution of Technology and Science Overturn Into Technoscience?Ulrich Fiedeler - 2011 - Poiesis and Praxis 8 (2-3):83-101.
Debate as Scientific Practice in Nineteenth-Century Paris: The Controversy Over the Microscope.Ann Elizabeth Fowler La Berge - 2004 - Perspectives on Science 12 (4):424-453.