Genres of Justification

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
If you need an accessible version of this item, please email your request to iusw@iu.edu so that they may create one and provide it to you.
Date
2007
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
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
Description
Keywords
contemporary, justification, methodology, models, experiment, general science,
Citation
DOI
10.1086/592951
Link(s) to data and video for this item
Downstream publication: Schickore, Jutta. (2008) "Doing Science, Writing Science." Philosophy of Science, 75(3) pg. 323-343.
Relation
Rights
Type
Collections