Scientific controversies : philosophical and historical perspectives /

Nearly a dozen major scientific controversies are investigated from "philosophical and historical" perspectives. In theory, scientific controversies should not exist, since science proceeds by logical deduction from empirical evidence. But facts are subject to different and often contradictory interpretations. In reality, the basic principles of a scientific theory are not always self-evident, the underlying assumptions or logic the theory employs may prove faulty on numerous grounds, and thus disputes inevitably arise. Although it has usually been held that scientific controversies are decided by empirical evidence, a crucial experiment or a mounting body of positive evidence, more recently "social constructivists" have maintained that nonempirical factors such as social context, rhetorical persuasiveness, or simply an individual's reputation (or lack thereof) strongly influence the outcomes of scientific controversies. Here 14 historians and philosophers of science examine scientific controversies in detail. Essays are devoted to their "structure"; case studies presented include controversies related to methodology in 17th-century natural philosophy, the Hooke-Newton debate over the theory of colors, dialectical aspects of Priestley's contributions to chemistry, anthropology as art or science, conflicting opinions over multiple personalities, analysis of dialectics in Galileo's defense of experimental science; force as a vector; punctuated equilibrium; and the controversy over quasars. Thought provoking and lively. Upper-division undergraduate and graduate students; professionals. J. W. Dauben; CUNY Herbert H. Lehman College