Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Laudan's Problem-Solving Model explicitly replaces truth-approximation with empirical problem scope as the criterion of scientific progress.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Problem scope alone cannot explain why one theory solves problems better than another without invoking accuracy or truth-likeness as criteria.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A theory could expand problem scope through ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses while diverging from truth, making progress merely apparent, not genuine.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Laudan's model struggles to distinguish legitimate scientific progress from technologically useful but systematically false frameworks.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Truth-approximation is metaphysically problematic and unobservable, while problem-solving scope is empirically measurable and pragmatically useful.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Science historically progressed by solving new empirical problems (disease, navigation, energy) rather than by approaching abstract metaphysical truth.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Problem-solving models avoid the pessimistic induction: past 'true' theories were later abandoned, but their problem-solving contributions endured.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.