TY - JOUR
T1 - Taming theory with thought experiments
T2 - Understanding and scientific progress
AU - Stuart, Michael T.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd.
PY - 2016/8/1
Y1 - 2016/8/1
N2 - I claim that one way thought experiments contribute to scientific progress is by increasing scientific understanding. Understanding does not have a currently accepted characterization in the philosophical literature, but I argue that we already have ways to test for it. For instance, current pedagogical practice often requires that students demonstrate being in either or both of the following two states: 1) Having grasped the meaning of some relevant theory, concept, law or model, 2) Being able to apply that theory, concept, law or model fruitfully to new instances. Three thought experiments are presented which have been important historically in helping us pass these tests, and two others that cause us to fail. Then I use this operationalization of understanding to clarify the relationships between scientific thought experiments, the understanding they produce, and the progress they enable. I conclude that while no specific instance of understanding (thus conceived) is necessary for scientific progress, understanding in general is.
AB - I claim that one way thought experiments contribute to scientific progress is by increasing scientific understanding. Understanding does not have a currently accepted characterization in the philosophical literature, but I argue that we already have ways to test for it. For instance, current pedagogical practice often requires that students demonstrate being in either or both of the following two states: 1) Having grasped the meaning of some relevant theory, concept, law or model, 2) Being able to apply that theory, concept, law or model fruitfully to new instances. Three thought experiments are presented which have been important historically in helping us pass these tests, and two others that cause us to fail. Then I use this operationalization of understanding to clarify the relationships between scientific thought experiments, the understanding they produce, and the progress they enable. I conclude that while no specific instance of understanding (thus conceived) is necessary for scientific progress, understanding in general is.
KW - Darwin's vertebrate eye
KW - Einstein's clock in the box
KW - Maxwell's demon
KW - Scientific progress
KW - Scientific understanding
KW - Thought experiments
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84964989192&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.04.002
DO - 10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.04.002
M3 - Article
C2 - 27474183
AN - SCOPUS:84964989192
SN - 0039-3681
VL - 58
SP - 24
EP - 33
JO - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A
JF - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A
ER -