Making 20th century science how theories became knowledge
Historically, the scientific method has been said to require proposing a theory, making a prediction of something not already known, testing the prediction, and giving up the theory (or substantially changing it) if it fails the test. A theory that leads to several successful predictions is more lik...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Libro electrónico |
| Idioma: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
New York :
Oxford University Press
2015.
|
| Colección: | EBSCO Academic eBook Collection Complete.
|
| Acceso en línea: | Conectar con la versión electrónica |
| Ver en Universidad de Navarra: | https://innopac.unav.es/record=b45611221*spi |
Tabla de Contenidos:
- Cover; Series; Making 20th Century Science; Copyright; Dedication; Contents; List of Illustrations; Preface; Part One The Reception and Evaluation of Theories in the Sciences; 1 Who Needs the Scientific Method?; 1.1 The Rings of Uranus; 1.2 Maxwell and Popper; 1.3 What is a Prediction? A Mercurial Definition; 1.4 Hierarchy and Demarcation; 1.5 What's Wrong with Quantum Mechanics?; 1.6 Was Chemistry More Scientific than Physics (1865-1980)? Mendeleev's Periodic Law; 1.7 Scientific Chemists: Benzene and Molecular Orbitals.
- 1.8 The Unscientific (But Very Successful) Method of Dirac and Einstein: Can We Trust Experiments to Test Theories?1.9 Why was Bibhas De's paper rejected by Icarus?; 1.10 The Plurality of Scientific Methods; 2 Reception Studies by Historians of Science; 2.1 What is Reception?; 2.2 The Copernican Heliocentric System; 2.3 Newton's Universal Gravity; 2.4 Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection; 2.5 Bohr Model of the Atom; 2.6 Conclusions and Generalizations; 3 Prediction-Testing in the Evaluation of Theories: A Controversy in the Philosophy of Science; 3.1 Introduction.
- 3.2 Novelty in the Philosophy of Science3.3 What is a Prediction? (Revisited); 3.4 Does Novelty Make a Difference?; 3.5 Evidence from Case Histories; 3.6 Are Theorists Less Trustworthy Than Observers?; 3.7 The Fallacy of Falsifiability: Even the Supreme Court Was Fooled; 3.8 Conclusions; 4 The Rise and Fall of Social Constructionism 1975-2000; 4.1 The Problem of Defining Science and Technology Studies; 4.2 The Rise of Social Constructionism; 4.3 The Fall of Social Constructionism; 4.4 Postmortem; 4.5 Consequences for Science Studies; Part Two Atoms, Molecules, and Particles.
- 5 Mendeleev's Periodic Law5.1 Mendeleev and the Periodic Law; 5.2 Novel Predictions; 5.3 Mendeleev's Predictions; 5.4 Reception By Whom?; 5.5 Tests of Mendeleev's Predictions; 5.6 Before the Discovery of Gallium; 5.7 The Impact of Gallium and Scandium; 5.8 The Limited Value of Novel Predictions; 5.9 Implications of the Law; 5.10 Conclusions; 6 The Benzene Problem 1865-1930; 6.1 Kekulé's Theory; 6.2 The First Tests of Kekulé's Theory; 6.3 Alternative Hypotheses; 6.4 Reception of Benzene Theories 1866-1880; 6.5 New Experiments, New Theories 1881-1900.
- 6.6 The Failure of Aromatic Empiricism 1901-19307 The Light Quantum Hypothesis; 7.1 Black-Body Radiation; 7.2 Planck's Theory; 7.3 Formulation of the Light-Quantum Hypothesis; 7.4 The Wave Theory of Light; 7.5 Einstein's Heuristic Viewpoint; 7.6 What Did Millikan Prove?; 7.7 The Compton Effect; 7.8 Reception of Neo-Newtonian Optics before 1923; 7.9 The Impact of Compton's Discovery; 7.10 Rupp's Fraudulent Experiments; 7.11 Conclusions; 8 Quantum Mechanics; 8.1 The Bohr Model; 8.2 The Wave Nature of Matter; 8.3 Schrödinger's Wave Mechanics.
