Reichenbach and the discovery/justification distinction

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

Authors

1 assistant professor, University of Isfahan

2 university of Isfahan

Abstract

Hans Reichenbach is the first philosopher that as codified in the philosophy of science period contemporary to provide a distinction between context of discovery and context of justification. The separation of the philosophy of science from other fields of study and the denial of any logic for the discovery of its two main purposes has been the expression of this distinction. Responding to the claims of Otto Neurath and the leftists of the Vienna Circle, the German political structure of the 1930s, and the establishment of independent scientific philosophy, the motivations became for design the distinction by Reichenbach. After Reichenbach, there were different readings about this distinction. Some readings of this distinction does not match with the early viewpoint of Reichenbach. In order to explication and explanation the distinction between the two contexts, he refers to four duties, one of which is the particular field of "psychology" and tasks of "descriptive", "critical", and "advisory" belonging to epistemology. From Reichenbach's point of view, context of discovery collecting the task of psychology and context of justification is play a role merely at task of descriptive, tasks of critical and advisory outside of the scope of context of justification. The purpose of this research, examination and analysis is the distinction between context of discovery and context of justification which is proposed by Reichenbach, until from the way we can do correct analysis the earlier position of the distinction.

Keywords

References

Anderson, Elizabeth, “Knowledge, Human Interests, and Objectivity in Feminist Epistemology”. Philosophical Topics23: 27–58, 1995.
Aufrecht, Monica, “The Context Distinction: Controversies over Feminist Philosophy of Science”. European Journal for Philosophy of Science1: 373–392, 2011.
Carnap, Rudolf, The Logical Structure of the World. Translated by Rolf A. George. Berkeley: University of California Press, [1928] 1969.
Feigl, Herbert, “Empiricism at bay? Revisions and a New Defense,” in R.S. Cohen and M. W. Wartofsky (eds,) Methodological and Historical Essays in the Natural and Social Sciences. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 14 (Dordrecht: Reidel), 1974.
Howard, Don, “Lost Wanderers in the Forest of Knowledge: Some Thoughts on the Discovery–Justification Distinction.” In Revisiting Discovery and Justification: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction, edited by Jutta Schickore and Friedrich Steinle, 3–23. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006.
____________, “The Philosophy of Science and the History of Science”. In The Continuum Companion to the Philosophy of Science, edited by Steven French and Juha Saatsi, 55–71. London: Continuum, 2011.
Hoyningen-Huene, Paul, “Context of Discovery and Context of Justification” Studies in the History andPhilosophy of SciencelSA (501-515), 1987.
__________________, "Context of Discovery versus Context of Justification and Thomas Kuhn." In (Schickore and Steinle 2006) 2006, 2006.
Laudan, Larry, "Why was the logic of discovery abandon?", in Nickles (1980), pp. 173-183, 1980.
Losee, John. A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2001.
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson, Who Knows: From Quine to a Feminist Empiricism. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1990.
Neurath, Otto, “Die Verirrten des Cartesius und das Auxiliarmotiv. Zur Psychologie des Entschlusses.” In Jahrbuch der Philosophischen Gesellschaft an der Universitaet Wien,59–60. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth, 1913.
Nickles, Tomas, “Introductory Essay: Scientific Discovery and the Future of Philosophy of Science”, in T. Nickles (ed.), Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality (Dordrecht: Reidel), pp. 1–59, 1980.
Reichenbach, Hans “Zur Induktions-maschine”, Erkenntnis 5: 172–173, 1935.
_______________, Experience and Predication. An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 1938.
_______________, The Theory of probability into the Logical and mathematical Foundation of the Calculus of probability. (Berkely/Losn Angeles: university of California press), 1949a.
______________, “The Philosophical Significance of the Theory of Relativity”, in P. A. Schilpp (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher Scientist (Evanston: The Library of Living Philosophers, pp. 287-311, 1949b.
______________, The Rise of Scientific Philosophy. Berkeley etc.: University of California Press, 1951.
______________,“Wahrscheinlichkeitslehre”. 2. Auflage auf Grundlage der erweiterten amerikanischen Ausgabe bearbeitet und herausgegeben von G. Link. Mit Erl¨auterungen von A. Kamlah, in Reichenbach 1971–1999 Vol. 7, 1994.
Schickore, Jutta & Steinle Friedrich. (editors), Revisiting Discovery and Justification: Historical and philosophical perspectives on the context distinction (Dordrecht: Springer), 2006.
Sciemann, Gregor, “Criticizing a difference of contexts. On Reichenbach’s Distinction between “Context of Discovery” and “Context of Justification” “, in F. Stadler (ed), The Vienna Circle and Logical Empiricism. Re-evauation and Future Perspectives (Dordrecht), pp. 237-252, 2003.
___________, “Inductive Justification and discovery.on Hans Reichenbach’s foundation of the autonomy of the philosophy of science”. In Schickore and Steinle (2006) pp. 41-54, 2006.
Sturm, Thomas. & Gigerenzer, Gerd, "How can we the distinction between discovery and justification?On the weaknesses of the strong programme in the sociology of science. . In Schickore and Steinle (2006) 133-158, 2006.
Swedberg, Richard, “Theorizing in sociology and social science: turning to the context of discovery” In SpringerScience and Business Media 41, pp. 1-40, 2011.
Videria, Antonio. and Mendonca, Andre, “Contextualizing the Contexts of Discovery and Justification: How to do Science Studies in Brazil”. In Brazilian Studies in Philosophy and History of Science (Dordrecht: Springer), pp. 233-234, 2011.
Shinakht (A Persian Word Means Knowledge)
Volume 12, Issue 2
May 2019
Pages 141-164

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 25 June 2018
  • Revise Date: 03 January 2022
  • Accept Date: 31 December 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics