John Stuart Mill, in his debate with William Whewell on the nature and logic of induction, is regarded as being the first to dismiss the supposed value of successful predictions as merely psychological. I shall argue that this view of the Whewell-Mill debate on predictions misconstrues Mill’s position and argument. From Mill’s point of view, the controversial point was not the question whether predictions ‘count more’ than ex-post explanations but the alleged assertion by Whewell that the successful predictions of the wave theory of light prove the existence of the ether. Mill argued that, on the one hand, the predictions of the wave theory of light do not and cannot provide evidence for the existence of the ether; as evidence for the laws of the theory, on the other hand, the predictions are superfluous, the laws being already well-confirmed. Mill actually endorsed a requirement of independent support closely resembling Whewell’s requirements for hypotheses; the controversy on the value of predictions is a product of the 20th century.
...More
Article
Achinstein, Peter;
(2010)
The War on Induction: Whewell Takes on Newton and Mill (Norton Takes On Everyone)
(/isis/citation/CBB001230085/)
Article
Cobb, Aaron D.;
(2011)
History and Scientific Practice in the Construction of an Adequate Philosophy of Science: Revisiting a Whewell/Mill Debate
(/isis/citation/CBB001024143/)
Essay Review
Achinstein, Peter;
(1992)
Inference to the best explanation: or, Who won the Mill-Whewell debate?
(/isis/citation/CBB000030581/)
Chapter
Snyder, Laura J.;
(2009)
Hypotheses in 19th-Century British Philosophy of Science: Herschel, Whewell, Mill
(/isis/citation/CBB001032103/)
Article
Henderson, James P.;
(1989)
Whewell's solution to the recriprocal demand riddle in Mill's “great chapter”
(/isis/citation/CBB000042261/)
Article
Snyder, Laura J.;
(1999)
Renovating the Novum Organum: Bacon, Whewell and induction
(/isis/citation/CBB000111667/)
Article
Johnson, Kent;
(2011)
Quantitative Realizations of Philosophy of Science: William Whewell and Statistical Methods
(/isis/citation/CBB001024183/)
Book
Snyder, Laura J.;
(2006)
Reforming Philosophy: A Victorian Debate on Science and Society
(/isis/citation/CBB000741795/)
Article
Hollander, Samuel;
(1983)
William Whewell and John Stuart Mill on the methodology of political economy
(/isis/citation/CBB000003967/)
Article
Casini, Paolo;
(1981)
Herschel, Whewell, Stuart Mill e l'“analogia della natura”
(/isis/citation/CBB000020916/)
Article
Robert, Olivier;
(2002)
La tentation comtienne de John Stuart Mill: une “disciple indiscipliné”
(/isis/citation/CBB000751025/)
Article
Eli I. Lichtenstein;
(2021)
(Mis)Understanding scientific disagreement: Success versus pursuit-worthiness in theory choice
(/isis/citation/CBB459964165/)
Article
Ducheyne, Steffen;
(2008)
J. S. Mill's Canons of Induction: From True Causes to Provisional Ones
(/isis/citation/CBB000960276/)
Article
Losee, John;
(1983)
Whewell and Mill on the relation between philosophy of science and history of science
(/isis/citation/CBB000003978/)
Article
(1992)
Mill, Whewell, and the wave-particle debate
(/isis/citation/CBB000060827/)
Chapter
Rowlinson, Matthew;
(2013)
History, Materiality and Type in Tennyson's “In Memoriam”
(/isis/citation/CBB001422073/)
Article
Snyder, Laura J.;
(1997)
The Mill-Whewell debate: Much ado about induction
(/isis/citation/CBB000073175/)
Article
Creedy, John;
(1989)
Whewell's “translation” of J.S. Mill
(/isis/citation/CBB000046932/)
Article
Magnus, P. D.;
(2010)
Inductions, Red Herrings, and the Best Explanation for the Mixed Record of Science
(/isis/citation/CBB001230043/)
Article
Nola, Robert;
(2013)
Darwin's Arguments in Favour of Natural Selection and against Special Creationism
(/isis/citation/CBB001252316/)
Be the first to comment!