The English and Foreign Languages University, India
* Corresponding author

Article Main Content

Historically, the problem of discovery or the problem of the genesis of scientific ideas has been taken seriously by the historians, psychologists, sociologists and philosophers who analyzed the creative thinking and formation of ideas and attempted to provide a meaningful account of them. In fact, the philosophical concern with scientific discovery is as old as science and philosophy of science themselves. However, almost throughout the first half of 20th century, philosophical reflection on the phenomenon of scientific discovery remained in a state of suspended animation. This is because the dominant trend in philosophy of science in this period outlawed it. The dominant view in philosophy of science maintained that the phenomenon of scientific discovery is philosophically irrelevant, and an adequate philosophical understanding of science should confine itself to the way in which scientific theories are justified; it was assumed that the process of justification is a neat, spick-and-span phenomenon eminently suited to be described in terms which are, logically speaking, cut and dry. The process of justification or evaluation according to this orthodox view constitutes the essence of science. Obviously, justification was demarcated from discovery. Justification, because of its supposed epistemic transparency, became the exclusive focus of philosophical attention to the detriment of discovery. The invidious distinction between discovery of scientific ideas and justification of finished ideas of science remained the catchword for a long time. This paper is an attempt to critically examine the nihilistic attitude of the dominant philosophies of science and to arrive at a philosophical theory of scientific discovery.

References

  1. Nickles, T. (Ed.) (1980). Scientific Discovery, Logic and Rationality. Dordrecht: Reidel.
     Google Scholar
  2. Nickles, T. (1994). "Enlightenment Versus Romantic Models of Creativity in Science--and Beyond," Creativity Research Journal, 7:277-314.
     Google Scholar
  3. Schunn, C. D. & Dunbar, K. (1996). "Priming, Analogy, and Awareness in Complex Reasoning," Memory & Cognition24:271-284.
     Google Scholar
  4. Howard, D., 2006, “Lost Wanderers in the Forest of Knowledge: Some Thoughts on the Discovery-Justification Distinction”, in J. Schickore and F. Steinle (ed.), Revisiting Discovery and Justification. Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction, Dordrecht: Springer, 3–22.
     Google Scholar
  5. Faye, Jan, 2014, The Nature of Scientific Thinking: On Interpretation, Explanation, and Understanding, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
     Google Scholar
  6. Amsterdamski, Stefan: 1975, Between Experience and Metaphysics, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, pp. 53-54.
     Google Scholar
  7. Schaffner, K. (1993). Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     Google Scholar
  8. Klahr, David and Herbert A. Simon., 1999, “Studies of Scientific Discovery: Complementary Approaches and Convergent Findings”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 125, No. 5 ,524-543.
     Google Scholar
  9. Thagard, P., (2012), The Cognitive Science of Science, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     Google Scholar
  10. Carnap, Rudolf: 1962, Logical Foundation of Probability, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     Google Scholar
  11. Hempel, Carl G.: 1966, Philosophy of Natural Science, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
     Google Scholar
  12. Peitruska-Madej, Elzbieta: June, 1985, ‘Should Philosophers of Science Consider Scientific Discovery?’ Ratio, XXVII, No.1, P 11-13.
     Google Scholar
  13. Monod Jacques, 1983, Chance and Necessity, Glassgow: Colins/Fount Paperback.
     Google Scholar
  14. Hesse, Mary B., 1958-9, ‘Theories, Dictionaries and Observation’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, IX, and also, ‘The Explanatory Function of Metaphor’, in Y.bar-Hillel (ed.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1965.
     Google Scholar
  15. Flew, Anthon: 1965, ‘Induction and Standards of Rationality’, in Pap and Edwards (ed.), Introduction to Modern Philosophy, New York: Free Press, p. 160.
     Google Scholar
  16. Mill, J.S. 1843, A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive, Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and The Methods of Scientific Investigation, London: Parker, Son and Bowin.
     Google Scholar
  17. Kuhn, Thomas S.: 1977, The Essential Tension, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, p. 16.
     Google Scholar
  18. Hesse, Mary B. 1965, ‘The Explanatory Function of Metaphor’, in Y. Bar-Hillel (ed.)., Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Amsterdam: North-Holland.
     Google Scholar
  19. Curd, Martin V. 1980, ‘The Logic of Discovery: An Analysis of Three Approaches’ in T. Nickles (ed.), Scientific Discovery, Logic and Rationality, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.
     Google Scholar
  20. Reichenbach, Hans: 1938, Experience and Prediction, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
     Google Scholar
  21. Popper, Karl R.: 1959, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, New York: Basic Books, pp. 31-32.
     Google Scholar
  22. Sudhakar V. 1993, ‘Problems and Constriants in Thomas Nickles’s Theory, Philosophy and Social Action, Vol. 19, No. 4. pp. 19-24.
     Google Scholar
  23. Nickles, Thomas, 1980, ‘Introductory Essay: Scientific Discovery and the Future of Philosophy of Science’ in T.Nickles (ed.), Scientific Discovery, Logic and Rationality, (henceforth SDLR), Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, p. 2&35.
     Google Scholar
  24. Burian, Richard M.: 1980, ‘Why Philosophers Should Not Despair of Understanding Scientific Discovery’, in T. Nickles (ed.), Scientific Discovery, Logic and Rationality, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, p. 328.
     Google Scholar
  25. McMullin, Erran: 1980, Panel Discussion on “The Rational Explanation of Historical Discoveries’: in T. Nickles (ed.), Scientific Discovery, Logic and Rationality, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, p. 28-30 & 328.
     Google Scholar
  26. Hanson, Norwood Russell: 1981, Patterns of Discovery, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     Google Scholar
  27. Rudner, R., 1953, “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments”, Philosophy of Science, 20: 1–6.
     Google Scholar
  28. Laudan, Larry: 1977, ‘The Sources of Modern Methodology’ in R.E. Butts and J. Hintikka (eds.), Historical and Philosophical Dimensions of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.
     Google Scholar
  29. Vyaltsev, Anatoli: 1985. ‘The Definition of Scientific Discovery,’ in The History of Science: Soviet Research, Vol.II, Moscow: USSR Academy of Science.
     Google Scholar