Description

Book Synopsis

It is widely believed in philosophy of science that nobody can claim that any verdict of science is forced upon us by the effects of a physical world upon our sense organs and instruments. The Quine-Duhem problem supposedly allows us to resist any conclusion. Views on language aside, Quine is supposed to have shown this decisively.

But it is just false. In many scientific examples, there is simply no room to doubt that a particular hypothesis is responsible for a refutation or established by the observations.

Fault Tracing shows how to play independently established hypotheses against each other to determine whether an arbitrary hypothesis needs to be altered in the light of (apparently) refuting evidence. It analyses real examples from natural science, as well as simpler cases. It argues that, when scientific theories have a structure that prevents them from using this method, the theory looks wrong, and is subject to serious criticism. This is a new, and potentially far-reaching, theory of empirical justification.

Fault-Tracing: Against Quine-Duhem: A Defense of the Objectivity of Scientific Justification

    Product form

    £85.02

    Includes FREE delivery

    RRP £89.50 – you save £4.48 (5%)

    Order before 4pm tomorrow for delivery by Wed 24 Jun 2026.

    A Hardback by Sam Mitchell

    15 in stock

      Trusted by thousands of customers. See 2,385+ Customer Reviews

      View other formats and editions of Fault-Tracing: Against Quine-Duhem: A Defense of the Objectivity of Scientific Justification by Sam Mitchell

      Publisher: De Gruyter
      Publication Date: 21/09/2020
      ISBN13: 9783110684995, 978-3110684995
      ISBN10:

      Description

      Book Synopsis

      It is widely believed in philosophy of science that nobody can claim that any verdict of science is forced upon us by the effects of a physical world upon our sense organs and instruments. The Quine-Duhem problem supposedly allows us to resist any conclusion. Views on language aside, Quine is supposed to have shown this decisively.

      But it is just false. In many scientific examples, there is simply no room to doubt that a particular hypothesis is responsible for a refutation or established by the observations.

      Fault Tracing shows how to play independently established hypotheses against each other to determine whether an arbitrary hypothesis needs to be altered in the light of (apparently) refuting evidence. It analyses real examples from natural science, as well as simpler cases. It argues that, when scientific theories have a structure that prevents them from using this method, the theory looks wrong, and is subject to serious criticism. This is a new, and potentially far-reaching, theory of empirical justification.

      Recently viewed products

      © 2026 Book Curl

        • American Express
        • Apple Pay
        • Diners Club
        • Discover
        • Google Pay
        • Maestro
        • Mastercard
        • PayPal
        • Shop Pay
        • Union Pay
        • Visa

        Login

        Forgot your password?

        Don't have an account yet?
        Create account