The Idea of a Logic of Discovery
暂无分享,去创建一个
Is there such a thing as a ‘Logic of Discovery’? Do we even have a consistent idea of such a thing? The approved answer to this seems to be “No”. Thus Popper argues (The Logic of Scientific Discovery) “The initial stage, the act of conceiving or inventing a theory, seems to me neither to call for logical analysis nor to be susceptible of it”, (p. 31.) Again, “… there is no such thing as a logical method of having new ideas, or a logical reconstruction of this process”, (p. 32.) Reichenbach writes that philosophy of science “… cannot be concerned with [reasons for suggesting hypotheses], but only with [reasons for accepting hypotheses]”. (Experience and Prediction, p. 382.) Braithwaite elaborates: “The solution of these historical problems involves the individual psychology of thinking and the sociology of thought. None of these questions are our business here.” (Scientific Explanation, pp. 20, 21.)
[1] H. Reichenbach. Experience and Prediction. An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge , 1938 .
[2] M. Kendall,et al. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. , 1959 .
[3] E. B. Wilson,et al. Scientific Explanation: A Study of the Function of Theory, Probability and Law in Science. , 1953 .