Show simple item record Jutta Schickore
dc.creator 2021-01-29T16:20:12Z 2021-01-29T16:20:12Z 2007
dc.description.abstract This article identifies a fundamental distinction in scientific practice: the mismatch between what scientists do and what they state they did when they communicate their findings in their publications. The insight that such a mismatch exists is not new. It was already implied in Hans Reichenbach’s distinction between the contexts of discovery and justification, and it is taken for granted across the board in philosophy of science and science studies. But while there is general agreement that the mismatch exists, the epistemological implications of that mismatch are not at all clear. Philosophers, historians, and sociologists of different stripes have expressed widely different views about how one should understand and interpret the relation between what scientists do and what they state they did. This article surveys a number of approaches to the mismatch. Based on this survey, I offer an assessment of the epistemological significance of the mismatch and identify the major meta?epistemological challenges that it poses for the analysis of scientific practice
dc.format talk
dc.relation.ispartofseries 1; Open
dc.relation.isversionof Downstream publication: Schickore, Jutta. (2008) "Doing Science, Writing Science." Philosophy of Science, 75(3) pg. 323-343.
dc.subject contemporary
dc.subject justification, methodology, models, experiment
dc.subject general science
dc.title Genres of Justification
dc.identifier.doi 10.1086/592951

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • &HPS1 [19]
    11–14 October, 2007 – Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, USA

Show simple item record

Search IUScholarWorks

Advanced Search


My Account