In this paper I discuss how descriptive studies of science, increasingly emphasised by philosophers of science, can be used to test normative theories of science. I claim that we can use cases of scientific practice as counter examples; if the practice of a given scientist can be shown to be justified and it diverges from the prescriptions of a scientific theory then the theory should be rejected. This approach differs from those offered by previous philosophers of science and at the (...) same time brings the philosophy of science more into line with other areas of philosophy. (shrink)

This paper begins by adopting a broad criterion of scientific methods, in which a method is some practice in science designed to achieve the goals of science; this allows us to deal with a wider range of questions than has been common in much past philosophy of science, and to discuss some of the more detailed methodological questions of concern to scientists. On this definition, apriori approaches prove insufficient, since many methodological questions require some empirical input to be decided. Laudan (...) has suggested that many such questions can be decided by testing methods empirically, but this encounters the problem that the empirical evidence is often indecisive. A more productive strategy is to utilise scientific theories: there are a wide range of these that are relevant to methodological questions and they are easier to validate. But this does not mean that empirical testing has no place. Instead, our experience with methods can be used to detect specific problems with the methods and to modify them accordingly. (shrink)

RÉSUMÉ: Nombreux sont ceux qui associent le terme de rhétorique à l'irrationa-lité. Je soutiendrai ici que la rhétorique peut être rationnelle dans le cas de l'argumentation en éthique. En nous fournissant une compréhension plus profonde de l'expérience des autres, la rhétorique nous rend capables de meilleurs jugements quant à ce qui les affecte.

RÉSUMÉ: Nombreux sont ceux qui associent le terme de rhétorique à l'irrationa-lité. Je soutiendrai ici que la rhétorique peut être rationnelle dans le cas de l'argumentation en éthique. En nous fournissant une compréhension plus profonde de l'expérience des autres, la rhétorique nous rend capables de meilleurs jugements quant à ce qui les affecte.