Systematicity and the Continuity Thesis

K. Brad Wray

Systematicity and the Continuity Thesis

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaper › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Abstract

Hoyningen-Huene (Systematicity: the nature of science, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013) develops an account of what science is, distinguishing it from common sense. According to Hoyningen-Huene, the key distinguishing feature is that science is more systematic. He identifies nine ways in which science is more systematic than common sense. I compare Hoyningen-Huene’s view to a view I refer to as the “Continuity Thesis.” The Continuity Thesis states that scientific knowledge is just an extension of common sense. This thesis is associated with Quine, Planck, and others. I argue that Hoyningen-Huene ultimately rejects the Continuity Thesis, and I present further evidence to show that the Continuity Thesis is false. I also argue that it is the systematicity of science that ultimately grounds the epistemic authority of science. Hoyningen-Huene thus draws attention to an important feature of science that explains the place of science in contemporary society.

Original language	English
Journal	Synthese
Volume	196
Issue	3
Pages (from-to)	819–832
Number of pages	13
ISSN	0039-7857
Publication status	Published - Mar 2019
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

common sense
continuity thesis
epistemic authority
scientific knowledge
systematicity

Access to Document

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1088-y

Cite this

@article{3a4bb60e6d104a969d07736fba5e09a7,

title = "Systematicity and the Continuity Thesis",

abstract = "Hoyningen-Huene (Systematicity: the nature of science, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013) develops an account of what science is, distinguishing it from common sense. According to Hoyningen-Huene, the key distinguishing feature is that science is more systematic. He identifies nine ways in which science is more systematic than common sense. I compare Hoyningen-Huene{\textquoteright}s view to a view I refer to as the “Continuity Thesis.” The Continuity Thesis states that scientific knowledge is just an extension of common sense. This thesis is associated with Quine, Planck, and others. I argue that Hoyningen-Huene ultimately rejects the Continuity Thesis, and I present further evidence to show that the Continuity Thesis is false. I also argue that it is the systematicity of science that ultimately grounds the epistemic authority of science. Hoyningen-Huene thus draws attention to an important feature of science that explains the place of science in contemporary society.",

keywords = "common sense, continuity thesis, epistemic authority, scientific knowledge, systematicity",

author = "Wray, {K. Brad}",

year = "2019",

month = mar,

language = "English",

volume = "196",

pages = "819–832",

journal = "Synthese",

issn = "0039-7857",

publisher = "Springer Nature",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Systematicity and the Continuity Thesis

AU - Wray, K. Brad

PY - 2019/3

Y1 - 2019/3

N2 - Hoyningen-Huene (Systematicity: the nature of science, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013) develops an account of what science is, distinguishing it from common sense. According to Hoyningen-Huene, the key distinguishing feature is that science is more systematic. He identifies nine ways in which science is more systematic than common sense. I compare Hoyningen-Huene’s view to a view I refer to as the “Continuity Thesis.” The Continuity Thesis states that scientific knowledge is just an extension of common sense. This thesis is associated with Quine, Planck, and others. I argue that Hoyningen-Huene ultimately rejects the Continuity Thesis, and I present further evidence to show that the Continuity Thesis is false. I also argue that it is the systematicity of science that ultimately grounds the epistemic authority of science. Hoyningen-Huene thus draws attention to an important feature of science that explains the place of science in contemporary society.

AB - Hoyningen-Huene (Systematicity: the nature of science, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013) develops an account of what science is, distinguishing it from common sense. According to Hoyningen-Huene, the key distinguishing feature is that science is more systematic. He identifies nine ways in which science is more systematic than common sense. I compare Hoyningen-Huene’s view to a view I refer to as the “Continuity Thesis.” The Continuity Thesis states that scientific knowledge is just an extension of common sense. This thesis is associated with Quine, Planck, and others. I argue that Hoyningen-Huene ultimately rejects the Continuity Thesis, and I present further evidence to show that the Continuity Thesis is false. I also argue that it is the systematicity of science that ultimately grounds the epistemic authority of science. Hoyningen-Huene thus draws attention to an important feature of science that explains the place of science in contemporary society.

KW - common sense

KW - continuity thesis

KW - epistemic authority

KW - scientific knowledge

KW - systematicity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84963701158&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0039-7857

VL - 196

SP - 819

EP - 832

JO - Synthese

JF - Synthese

IS - 3

ER -

Systematicity and the Continuity Thesis

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this