Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 21 November 2018

Abstract and Keywords

This article draws on several elements of Pierre Duhem's account of science to show issues of the cumulation of knowledge and scientific progress in the social sciences. It concentrates on Duhem's principle of underdetermination of theory by evidence, his holist account of the growth of scientific knowledge, and his conventionalist view of theories. Willard Van Ormand Quine's version is holism on a still larger scale than Duhem's. Duhem's appeal to le bon sens does not present any damaging subjectivity into an account of science beyond what most philosophers of science recognize. It is clear that no measure-stipulation has been accepted by contemporary authors on all sides of the balance-of-power debate. It is shown that the concept of the measure-stipulation can explain the progress or absence of progress of debates in social science just as well as those in the natural sciences.

Keywords: social sciences, Pierre Duhem, underdetermination, holism, Van Ormand Quine, measure-stipulation, power debate

Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.

Please subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.

For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs, and if you can''t find the answer there, please contact us.