Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
---|---|---|---|---|
1160913 | Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A | 2012 | 11 Pages |
This paper traces the origins of the styles project, originally presented as ‘styles of scientific reasoning’. ‘Styles of scientific thinking & doing’ is a better label; the styles can also be called genres, or, ways of finding out. A. C. Crombie’s template of six fundamentally distinct ones was turned into a philosophical tool, but with a tinge of Paul Feyerabend’s anarchism. Ways of finding out are not defined by necessary and sufficient conditions, but can be recognized as distinct within a sweeping, anthropological, vision of the European sciences. The approach is unabashedly whiggish. The emergence of these styles is part of what Reviel Netz calls cognitive history, and is to be understood in an ecological way. How did a species like ours, on an Earth like this, develop a few quite general strategies for finding out about, and altering, its world? At a more analytical level, the project invokes Bernard Williams’ notion of truthfulness to explicate the idea that these styles are ‘self-authenticating’ and without foundations. The paper concludes with open questions. What role (for example) have these few fundamentally distinct genres of inquiry played in the formation of the anomalous Western idea of Nature apart from Man?
► Origins of the philosophical idea, ‘Styles of scientific reasoning’. ► No necessary and sufficient conditions for styles: ‘Just look!’. ► Uses Bernard Williams’ truthfulness to explicate ‘self-authenticating’. ► Is avowedly whiggish in its use of histories of the European sciences. ► Can be understood in terms of Reviel Netz’s cognitive history, ecological history.