| Summary: | 碩士 === 東吳大學 === 哲學系 === 95 === “Philosophy of science without history of science is empty；history of science without philosophy of science is blind.” that shows the main purpose of Lakatos’s methodology of scientific research programmes. It deals with the relationship between Philosophy of science and history of science. Musgrave used Lakatos’s methodology of scientific research programmes as the method of reconstruction, and presented the process of how did oxygen theory supplant phlogiston theory afresh. This is to respond to the second half of the dictum. Musgrave argued that the actual story of the chemical revolution fits Lakatos’s methodology like a glove, and he tried to reveal once rational reconstruction of scientific history. How do we reconstruct it？What are the important points of the methodology？These are the main focus of the first half of the article. To display the reconstruction of chemical revolution in compliance with Lakatos’s methodology of scientific research programmes is the second focus of the first half of the article.
There are two purposes of the later half of the article. First of all, introduced and arranged chemical historian’s data. And then back-checked the historical reconstruction. We discover some points which would be ignored easily in Lakatos’s methodology of scientific research programmes. And these are the defects in the methodology；the contradiction between Musgrave’s reconstruction and real chemical history. Secondly, focus on what are the new points from the relationship between philosophy of science and history of science. For example, explain the state of “quasi-competition” and talk about the state of “bottleneck” between the scientific theories. Finally, try to answer what kind of the role does philosophy of science play for history of science？
|
|---|
