Preview

Critique of Nicolas Maxwell’s Aim-Oriented Empiricism

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
2252 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Critique of Nicolas Maxwell’s Aim-Oriented Empiricism
Critique of Nicolas Maxwell’s Aim-Oriented Empiricism In his paper, “Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos and Aim-Oriented Empiricism,” Nicholas Maxwell proposes the latest version of his conception of natural science, which he calls aim-oriented empiricism (AOE). Maxwell states that AOE “is a kind of synthesis of the views of Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos, but is also an improvement over the views of all three.”(181) It is Maxwell’s conception of aim-oriented empiricism (hereafter referred to as AOE) that this paper is addressed to. There are two central reasons for Maxwell’s conception of AOE. First is his claim that physics has an implicit, persistent assumption about the universe, “that the universe is such that no seriously disunified, ad hoc theory is true.” (181) Second is Maxwell’s assertion that “the assumption is pure conjecture, substantial and influential but bereft of any kind of justification.” (182) One of the problems that Maxwell states that his conception of AOE is designed to solve is ”how can rival versions of the assumption be rationally assessed, so that what is accepted by physics can be improved.” (182) The rational for the conception of AOE is predicated on the assertion that there is no justification for the current assumption that theories should be unified and universal, “and thus (the assumption is) all too likely to be false.” (182) I will argue that there is justification for the assumption that theories should be unified and universal rather than disunified and ad hoc. Maxwell begins making his case for AOE by noting the bias in theoretical physics for unified theories over disunified, ad hoc rival theories, even if the ad hoc theories are equally successful at predicting empirical observations (181). He claims that this means physics makes an untestable metaphysical assumption about the universe, that no disunified, ad hoc theory can be true. (181) He further claims that this implicit assumption is “substantial,


References: Baggini J., Fosl P., The philosopher’s toolkit (2003), Malden, MA, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Maxwell Nicholas, (2005), Popper, kuhn, lakatos and aim-oriented empiricism. Philosophia Vol. 32, (1-4), p., 181-235. Merriam-Webster Online, accessed on Dec. 9, 2006 at <http://www.m-w.com/ >

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    SCIE1000 Philosophy Essay

    • 1148 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Alan Chalmers, a British-Australian philosopher of science and best-selling author, suggests a common view of science by which scientific knowledge is ‘reliable’ and ‘objectively proven’ knowledge that is derived from facts of experience, experimental procedure and observations. This essay aims to discuss the problems that are likely to be highlighted by a Popperian hypothetico-deductivist when confronted with Chalmers’ adverse views on the validity of the scientific method. Both Alan Chalmers and Karl Popper - renowned for the development of hypothetico-deductivist/falsificationist account of science - represent the two major, contradictory theories (falsification and induction) regarding the functionality of science. I will be structuring my argument around these two models and the several complications surrounding the inductivist’s account of science that are seemingly solved by Popper’s alternative.…

    • 1148 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Laughlin, R., & Pines, D. (2012). The Theory of Everything. Retrieved May 27, 2012 from the Star Teach Astronomy Education Website: http://www.pnas.org/content/97/1/28.full…

    • 946 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Comment on the view that the design argument provides a coherent explanation of the universe (9)…

    • 666 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Rosenberg, A. (2005). Philosophy of science: A contemporary introduction (Second ed.). New York, New York, USA:…

    • 314 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Choice and Trait Theory

    • 1885 Words
    • 8 Pages

    theory as a way of both “rearranging existing theories and data to throw new light…

    • 1885 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    David Entwistle

    • 1412 Words
    • 6 Pages

    “In many ways the foundations of science were paved in part by Christian worldview that allowed for the universe to be seen as an orderly place in which laws could describe the regularities found within it, based on the premise that the world was created by a powerful, rational and person Being” (Entwistle, 2010, p. 33).…

    • 1412 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Suppose an empirically successful accepted theory T, and its rival T’, which is equally empirically successful, but makes claims that are quite different from those of T about the ‘deep structure’ of the universe (Worrall, 2011). As such, the theories make all the same predictions about what’s observable, but differ in regards to what is unobservable. In light of the evidence, the realist must then consider both theories as equally good, and thus by supposition, they are rivals and both cannot be considered to be true. However, in the case of the constructive empiricist, empirical adequacy is the only rational candidate for the belief involved in a theory’s acceptance and as such underdetermination does not effect their position. Consider the two most prominent theories in contemporary physics: the general theory of relativity and the quantum theory. These two theories are considered not absolutely inconsistent yet they are mutually incompatible (Worrall, 2011). The quantum theory states that everything is quantised, while the general theory does not consider space-time to be quantised. The general theory states that all laws are covariant, but the quantum theory is not a covariant theory. So which is seen to be true from the perspective of the scientific realist? This example illustrates the threat that underdetermination…

    • 1081 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Another philosopher of science, Nancy Cartwright, also argues against the unity of science by stating that the laws of physics do not define the laws of nature. She states “Nature does not ‘add’ forces. For the ‘component’ forces are not there, in any but a metaphorical sense, to be added; and the laws which say they are there must be also given a metaphysical reading” (Cartwright, 875). Cartwright distinguishes between two ways of thinking about laws. The first way is that “fundamental” laws are those hypothesized by the realists, and they are meant to describe the actual structure of the universe. The second way is that “phenomenological” laws, these laws are useful for making empirical predictions.…

    • 246 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Metaphysics and Nominalism

    • 1134 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Metaphysics shares a breadth of problems concerning ‘universals’. One view that addresses these problems is nominalism. Nominalism is the position that universals do not exist outside the mind. There are different sects of nominalism that expresses various stances about the problem at hand. Austere nominalism, metalinguistic nominalism, and trope theory are the various types of nominalism that refute the claim of realism. Each of these types of nominalism contain their own respective views towards universals and have their own strengths and weaknesses. Austere nominalism, metalinguistic nominalism, and trope theory have many similarities and differences as well as strong points that support the nominalist perspective.…

    • 1134 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Bibliography: Caws, Peter. The Philosophy of Science. Princeton, New Jersey; D. Van Nostrand Company Inc. 1965.…

    • 2407 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Quantum Entanglement Theory

    • 3227 Words
    • 13 Pages

    on some of the points we shall make in this paper. We will also discuss the roles of…

    • 3227 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Questions about the nature of the physical world are among some of the oldest and most prominent in philosophy. Such problems challenge our most basic beliefs about the structure of the world and force us to reconsider everything we think we know. How do we know that we are not dreaming, or in The Matrix? For that matter, how do we know there is a material world at all, and that we are not simply immaterial minds whose ideas create our perceptions? In this essay I will address skeptical questions such as these by comparing a simple skeptical argument with G. E. Moore’s famous counterargument. I will attempt to demonstrate that the skeptical argument is in fact the more reasonable by considering several flaws in Moore’s reasoning.…

    • 1551 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Everything

    • 354 Words
    • 2 Pages

    In theoretical physics, a theory of everything (TOE) is a theory that would explain and unify all known fundamental interactions of nature in a single model. Originally, the term was used playfully in regard to overgeneralized theories. However, it became a popular way of referring to the “holy grail” of physics. A theory of everything in philosophy would ask: "Why is reality understandable?" "Why are the laws of nature as they are?" "Why is there anything at all?" The idea of everything is simply an answer to lost questions, a reason for reasoning, and the idea that all is simply all, as everything is everything.…

    • 354 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Holism

    • 3897 Words
    • 19 Pages

    reducible to chemistry and the laws of chemistry are ex- ontological reasons that prevent reductive models in prinplained by physics.…

    • 3897 Words
    • 19 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The Problem of Universals

    • 3356 Words
    • 14 Pages

    The Ontological problem has occupied many philosophers and intellectuals since the very beginning of human thought. What seems to be a simple and rather ridiculous question to the average person, ‘what exists?’ or ‘what is there?’ serves as the general question for the ontological problem. Almost everyone accepts the existence of physical objects, to which I will now refer as ‘particulars’. Actual pencils, buildings, cats, humans and planets are all examples of particulars. In fact, any physical object that is perceivable by sense perception qualifies as a particular. A particular exists at one place at a given moment in time. For example, an individual such as President George W. Bush cannot be at two places (or more) at the same time. The problem starts when talking about abstract entities: they are non-physical objects that seem to exist not in space and time, but rather in a whole different realm. They are unperceivable by sense perception. Among them are: numbers, classes and universals. Numbers and classes are easy to understand, and acceptable by all. Universals, which are the subject of my paper, are: properties, or qualities of particulars, kinds or sorts of particulars, and relations between two or more particulars. For example: the ‘redness’ of an apple (property of an apple), and the relation between two apples, one bigger than the other, are both universals. The major debate arises when discussing about the nature of the existence of those universals. It is known as the problem of universals. While Realists claim that universals are actual entities that exist in space and time (although they can exist in more than one place at a given moment), nominalists deny this kind of existence, and argue that universals are mere names for descriptions attributed to particulars.…

    • 3356 Words
    • 14 Pages
    Powerful Essays