Share This Article:

The Value of Beauty in Theory Pursuit: Kuhn, Duhem, and Decision Theory

Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:128KB) PP. 9-14
DOI: 10.4236/ojpp.2013.31003    12,870 Downloads   27,423 Views  

ABSTRACT

Should judgments of beauty play a guiding role in theoretical science even if beauty is not a sign of truth? In this paper I argue that they should in certain cases. If we analyze the rationality of theoretical pursuit using decision theory, a theory’s beauty can influence the utilities of the various options confronting the researcher. After considering the views of Pierre Duhem and Thomas Kuhn on aesthetics in science, I suggest that because we value freedom of inquiry we rightly allow scientists some choice in how they value aesthetic properties of theories and thus some freedom to use beauty to guide their research program.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Morgan, G. (2013). The Value of Beauty in Theory Pursuit: Kuhn, Duhem, and Decision Theory. Open Journal of Philosophy, 3, 9-14. doi: 10.4236/ojpp.2013.31003.

References

[1] Achinstein, P. (1993). How to defend a theory without testing it: Niels bohr and the “logic of pursuit”. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 13, 90-120.
[2] Curd, M. (1980). The logic of discovery: An analysis of three approaches. In T. Nickles (Ed.), Scientific discovery, logic, and rationality (pp. 201-219). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
[3] Curtin, D. (1980). The aesthetic dimension of science: The sixteenth nobel conference. New York: Philosophical Library.
[4] Duhem, P. (1954). Aim and structure of physical theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[5] Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. London: New Left Books.
[6] Greene, B. (1999). The elegant universe. New York: Vintage Books.
[7] Hempel, C. (1965). Inductive inconsistencies. In C. Hempel (Ed.), Aspects of scientific explanation (pp. 53-79). New York: The Free Press.
[8] Kuhn, T. S. (1969). Comment on the relations between science and art. In T. S. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension (pp. 340-351). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[9] Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[10] Kuhn, T. S. (1973). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In T. S. Kuhn (Ed.), Essential tension (pp. 320-339). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
[11] Lloyd, E. (1996). Feyerabend, mill, and pluralism. Philosophy of Science, 64, S396-S407.
[12] Margolis, J. (1997). Objectivity: False leads from T. S. Kuhn on the role of the aesthetic in the sciences. In A. Tauber (Ed.), The elusive synthesis: Aesthetics and science (pp. 189-202). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[13] McAllister, J. (1996). Beauty and revolution in science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
[14] McAllister, J. (1998). Is beauty a sign of truth in scientific theories. American Scientist, 86, 174-183. doi:10.1511/1998.2.174
[15] Morgan, G. J. (2005). The beauty of symmetrical design: The alleged epistemic role of beauty in theoretical science. Ph.D. Thesis, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
[16] Musgrave, A. (1999). Essays on realism and rationalism. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
[17] Rota, G. (1997). The phenomenology of mathematical beauty. Synthese, 111, 171-182. doi:10.1023/A:1004930722234
[18] Sen, A. (2002), Rationality and freedom. Harvard: Harvard Belknap Press.
[19] Tauber, A. (1997). The elusive synthesis: Aesthetics and science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[20] Wechsler, J. (1978). On aesthetics in science. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.