Chapter

What Is Wrong with the Strong Programme's Case Study of the “Hobbes–Boyle Dispute”? What Is Wrong with the Strong Programme's Case Study of the “Hobbes–Boyle Dispute”? <i>Cassandra L. Pinnick</i>

Cassandra L. Pinnick

in A House Built on Sand

Published in print September 1998 | ISBN: 9780195117257
Published online February 2006 | e-ISBN: 9780199785995 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0195117255.003.0015
 What Is Wrong with the Strong Programme's Case Study of the “Hobbes–Boyle Dispute”?  What Is Wrong with the Strong Programme's Case Study of the “Hobbes–Boyle Dispute”?  Cassandra L. Pinnick

Show Summary Details

Preview

This essay argues that Shapin and Schaffer’s reasoning in their book, Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life, begins from the faulty premise that Hobbes and Boyle represent as clearly defined, and unquestionably different, methodological stances. If Shapin and Schaffer’s history of science is incorrect, then their desired conclusions about the epistemology of science are not motivated.

Keywords: Shapin; Schaffer; Hobbes; Boyle; bad history; methodology; experimentalism; Leviathan and the Air-Pump

Chapter.  6435 words. 

Subjects: Philosophy of Science

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Buy this work at Oxford University Press »

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.