Scientific progress with an institutional aim

Ilkka Niiniluoto
{"title":"Scientific progress with an institutional aim","authors":"Ilkka Niiniluoto","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00282-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Darrell Rowbottom has been an active participant in debates about scientific progress. In his recent work, <i>Scientific Progress</i> (2023), he gives a critical summary of the rival proposals and arguments during the last 15 years. But, more interestingly, Rowbottom explains the lack of consensus among philosophers of science by questioning the mainstream view that science is progressive by objective standards. Inspired by J. L. Mackie’s error theory in meta-ethics, he challenges the thesis that science has overarching shared or corporate aims, concluding that the criteria of scientific progress are ultimately local and subjective. This paper evaluates Rowbottom’s argument by defending an institutional account of the aim of science and by separating the aims of science from the standards of its progress. </p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-025-00282-y.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44204-025-00282-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Darrell Rowbottom has been an active participant in debates about scientific progress. In his recent work, Scientific Progress (2023), he gives a critical summary of the rival proposals and arguments during the last 15 years. But, more interestingly, Rowbottom explains the lack of consensus among philosophers of science by questioning the mainstream view that science is progressive by objective standards. Inspired by J. L. Mackie’s error theory in meta-ethics, he challenges the thesis that science has overarching shared or corporate aims, concluding that the criteria of scientific progress are ultimately local and subjective. This paper evaluates Rowbottom’s argument by defending an institutional account of the aim of science and by separating the aims of science from the standards of its progress.

以制度为目标的科学进步
达雷尔·罗伯顿一直积极参与有关科学进步的辩论。在他最近的著作《科学进步》(2023)中,他对过去15年的竞争提议和论点进行了批判性的总结。但是,更有趣的是,Rowbottom通过质疑科学在客观标准上是进步的主流观点来解释科学哲学家之间缺乏共识。受j.l.麦基在元伦理学中的错误理论的启发,他对科学具有总体共享或共同目标的论点提出了挑战,得出结论认为,科学进步的标准最终是局部和主观的。本文通过为科学目标的制度性解释辩护,并将科学目标与科学进步的标准分开,来评价罗伯顿的论点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信