The Structure of Science

The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation
Cover of the first edition
Author Ernest Nagel
Country United States
Language English
Subject Philosophy of science
Publisher Harcourt, Brace & World
Publication date
 1961
Media type Print (Hardcover and Paperback)
Pages 618
ISBN 978-0915144716

The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation is a 1961 book about the philosophy of science by the philosopher Ernest Nagel. The book is considered a classic discussion of its subject, though its approach has been seen as outdated.

Publication history

The Structure of Science was first published by Harcourt, Brace & World in 1961. It was reprinted in 1979 by Hackett Publishing Company.

Reception

Mainstream media

The Structure of Science received a mixed review from the philosopher Raziel Abelson in Commentary.[1] The book was also reviewed by the philosopher A. J. Ayer in Scientific American and William Gilman in The Nation.[2][3]

Ableson considered the book's publication an important event in American philosophy. He credited Nagel with consolidating the rival insights of logical positivism and pragmatism, demonstrating how four different kinds of explanation function in different types of inquiry, refuting the view that science does nothing more than describe "sequences of phenomena", and convincingly criticizing Berlin. However, he argued that Nagel's account of science was strained and that some of Nagel's views were unclear. He believed that Nagel was less successful in discussing sociology and history than he was in discussing the natural sciences. He also charged Nagel with vacillating between the "mechanistic" view of social knowledge and that of "pragmatic pluralism", arguing that each of these perspectives has merit, but only when adopted with full commitment.[1]

Scientific and academic journals

The Structure of Science was discussed by Colin Klein in The Philosophical Quarterly,[4] Grażyna Musiał in the Journal of Economics & Management,[5] and the philosopher Kenneth F. Schaffner in The Journal of Philosophy.[6]

Klein wrote that discussions of the role of reduction in scientific explanation published after the book moved away from Nagel's views, because of "perceived shortcomings in Nagel’s theory of reduction." He argued that the trend away from Nagel's views has been a mistake. In his view, while "Nagel’s account of reduction has a number of flaws" Nagel's "account of intertheoretic connection is largely correct."[4] Musiał wrote that the book is "a source of inspiring conclusions" and is regarded as one of the "fundamental works on the contemporary methodology of science." She added that Nagel's conception of scientific theories is "considered classical and as such, worth of detailed analysis" and that Nagel's "position left numerous opened questions that were further developed" by other authors, and concluded that Nagel's book is "still a valuable reading for junior research workers in economics who wish to reinforce their knowledge."[5] Schaffner noted that "Nagel's theory is based on the reduction of classical thermodynamics to statistical mechanics" and that criticisms of his theory "are based on the application of the reductionist mode of thinking to genetics, statistics and the concept of multiple realizability".[6]

Evaluations in books

The philosopher Adolf Grünbaum, writing in Philosophical Problems of Space and Time (1963; second edition 1973), criticized Nagel for misinterpreting the philosopher of science Henri Poincaré.[7] The philosopher Douglas Hofstadter, writing in Gödel, Escher, Bach (1979), described Nagel's book as a classic in the philosophy of science, and praised it for Nagel's discussions of reductionism and holism and teleological and non-telological explanations.[8] The historian Peter Gay, writing in Style in History (1974), praised The Structure of Science as an important book and a clear exposition of positivism, crediting Nagel with refuting opposing points of view.[9] Gay wrote in Reading Freud (1990) that Nagel's work is a book on which "many of us grew up", and that it "remains valuable". He noted that while Nagel was "no Freudian", its the closing sentence paraphrases the famous last paragraph of Sigmund Freud's The Future of an Illusion (1927).[10] The philosopher Roger Scruton, writing in Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey (1994), praised Nagel's discussion of the "dispute over the nature of theories and theoretical terms".[11] The philosopher Isaac Levi, writing in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (1999), described The Structure of Science as a well-known classic in its field.[12] The philosopher Michael Ruse, writing in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (2005), described The Structure of Science as Nagel's "definitive work", but concluded that Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) discredited Nagel's approach to the philosophy of science.[13]

References

Footnotes

  1. 1 2 Ableson 1961.
  2. ↑ Ayer 1961, p. 197.
  3. ↑ Gilman 1961, pp. 503–504.
  4. 1 2 Klein 2009, pp. 39–53.
  5. 1 2 Musiał 2011, pp. 73–86.
  6. 1 2 Schaffner 2012, pp. 516–566.
  7. ↑ Grünbaum 1974, p. 91.
  8. ↑ Hofstadter 1980, p. 752.
  9. ↑ Gay 1988, p. 237.
  10. ↑ Gay 1990, p. 187.
  11. ↑ Scruton 1997, p. 535.
  12. ↑ Levi 1999, p. 595.
  13. ↑ Ruse 2005, p. 637.

Bibliography

Books

  • Gay, Peter (1990). Reading Freud: Explorations & Entertainments. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-05127-1.
  • Gay, Peter (1988). Style in History: Gibbon, Ranke, Macaulay, Burckhardt. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-30558-9.
  • Grünbaum, Adolf (1974). Philosophical Problems of Space and Time. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company. ISBN 90 277 0358 2.
  • Hofstadter, Douglas R. (1980). Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. London: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-005579-7.
  • Levi, Isaac; Audi, Robert, Editor (1999). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-63722-8.
  • Ruse, Michael; Honderich, Ted, Editor (2005). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-926479-1.
  • Scruton, Roger (1997). Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey. London: Arrow Books. ISBN 0-7493-1902-X.
Journals

  • Abelson, Raziel (1961). "The Structure of Science, by Ernest Nagel". Commentary (October 1).
  • Ayer, A. J. (1961). "Structure of science". Scientific American. 204.  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Gilman, William (1961). "The Human Instrument". The Nation. 192 (23).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Klein, Colin (2009). "Reduction Without Reductionism: A Defence of Nagel on Connectability". The Philosophical Quarterly. 59.  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Musiał, Grażyna (2011). "Ernest Nagel and economic methodology: a new look". Journal of Economics & Management. 7.  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Schaffner, Kenneth F. (2012). "What kind of uncertainty is that? Using personal probability for expressing one's thinking about logical and mathematical propositions". The Journal of Philosophy. 109 (8/9).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.