| Description |
1 online resource |
| Contents |
Cover; Series; Making 20th Century Science; Copyright; Dedication; Contents; List of Illustrations; Preface; Part One The Reception and Evaluation of Theories in the Sciences; 1 Who Needs the Scientific Method?; 1.1 The Rings of Uranus; 1.2 Maxwell and Popper; 1.3 What is a Prediction? A Mercurial Definition; 1.4 Hierarchy and Demarcation; 1.5 What's Wrong with Quantum Mechanics?; 1.6 Was Chemistry More Scientific than Physics (1865-1980)? Mendeleev's Periodic Law; 1.7 Scientific Chemists: Benzene and Molecular Orbitals |
|
1.8 The Unscientific (But Very Successful) Method of Dirac and Einstein: Can We Trust Experiments to Test Theories?1.9 Why was Bibhas De's paper rejected by Icarus?; 1.10 The Plurality of Scientific Methods; 2 Reception Studies by Historians of Science; 2.1 What is Reception?; 2.2 The Copernican Heliocentric System; 2.3 Newton's Universal Gravity; 2.4 Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection; 2.5 Bohr Model of the Atom; 2.6 Conclusions and Generalizations; 3 Prediction-Testing in the Evaluation of Theories: A Controversy in the Philosophy of Science; 3.1 Introduction |
|
3.2 Novelty in the Philosophy of Science3.3 What is a Prediction? (Revisited); 3.4 Does Novelty Make a Difference?; 3.5 Evidence from Case Histories; 3.6 Are Theorists Less Trustworthy Than Observers?; 3.7 The Fallacy of Falsifiability: Even the Supreme Court Was Fooled; 3.8 Conclusions; 4 The Rise and Fall of Social Constructionism 1975-2000; 4.1 The Problem of Defining Science and Technology Studies; 4.2 The Rise of Social Constructionism; 4.3 The Fall of Social Constructionism; 4.4 Postmortem; 4.5 Consequences for Science Studies; Part Two Atoms, Molecules, and Particles |
|
5 Mendeleev's Periodic Law5.1 Mendeleev and the Periodic Law; 5.2 Novel Predictions; 5.3 Mendeleev's Predictions; 5.4 Reception By Whom?; 5.5 Tests of Mendeleev's Predictions; 5.6 Before the Discovery of Gallium; 5.7 The Impact of Gallium and Scandium; 5.8 The Limited Value of Novel Predictions; 5.9 Implications of the Law; 5.10 Conclusions; 6 The Benzene Problem 1865-1930; 6.1 Kekulé's Theory; 6.2 The First Tests of Kekulé's Theory; 6.3 Alternative Hypotheses; 6.4 Reception of Benzene Theories 1866-1880; 6.5 New Experiments, New Theories 1881-1900 |
|
6.6 The Failure of Aromatic Empiricism 1901-19307 The Light Quantum Hypothesis; 7.1 Black-Body Radiation; 7.2 Planck's Theory; 7.3 Formulation of the Light-Quantum Hypothesis; 7.4 The Wave Theory of Light; 7.5 Einstein's Heuristic Viewpoint; 7.6 What Did Millikan Prove?; 7.7 The Compton Effect; 7.8 Reception of Neo-Newtonian Optics before 1923; 7.9 The Impact of Compton's Discovery; 7.10 Rupp's Fraudulent Experiments; 7.11 Conclusions; 8 Quantum Mechanics; 8.1 The Bohr Model; 8.2 The Wave Nature of Matter; 8.3 Schrödinger's Wave Mechanics |
| Summary |
Historically, the scientific method has been said to require proposing a theory, making a prediction of something not already known, testing the prediction, and giving up the theory (or substantially changing it) if it fails the test. A theory that leads to several successful predictions is more likely to be accepted than one that only explains what is already known but not understood. This process is widely treated as the conventional method of achieving scientific progress, and was used throughout the twentieth century as the standard route to discovery and experimentation. But does science |
| Bibliography |
Includes bibliographical references and index |
| Notes |
Print version record |
| Subject |
Science -- Methodology -- History -- 20th century
|
|
Science -- History -- 20th century
|
|
Science -- Methodology -- History -- 19th century
|
|
Science -- History -- 19th century
|
|
SCIENCE -- History.
|
|
Science
|
|
Science -- Methodology
|
| Genre/Form |
History
|
| Form |
Electronic book
|
| ISBN |
9780199978519 |
|
0199978514 |
|
9781322964904 |
|
1322964904 |
|
