The distinction between discovery and justification is ambiguous. This obscures the debate over a logic of discovery. For the debate presupposes the distinction. Real discoveries are well established. What is well established is justified. The proper distinctions are three: initial thinking, plausibility, and acceptability. Logic is not essential to initial thinking. We do not need good supporting reasons to initially think of an hypothesis. Initial thoughts need be neither plausible nor acceptable. Logic is essential, as Hanson noted, to both plausibility and acceptability. An hypothesis needs good supporting reasons to be either plausible or acceptable. Such reasons need not be relative to the particular scientific theory undergoing test at the time. There is no fundamental difference between reasons relevant to plausibility and acceptability. The difference is one of degree. Acceptability requires more than plausibility.
[1]
L. Darden,et al.
Reasoning in scientific change: Charles Darwin, Hugo de Vries, and the discovery of segregation.
,
1976,
Studies in history and philosophy of science.
[2]
W. Salmon.
The foundations of scientific inference
,
1967
.
[3]
Norwood Russell Hanson,et al.
The Idea of a Logic of Discovery
,
1965,
Dialogue.
[4]
D. Shapere.
Plausibility and Justification in the Development of Science
,
1966
.
[5]
K. Schaffner,et al.
Logic of discovery and justification in regulatory genetics.
,
1974,
Studies in history and philosophy of science.
[6]
T. Kuhn,et al.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
,
1964
.