How Do You Falsify a Question?: Crucial Tests versus Crucial Demonstrations

Abstract

How is the deep disagreement between what Kuhn characterized as paradigms ultimately resolved and how do we interpret such debates epistemically? A close analysis of the Ox-Phos Controversy in bioenergetics from the 1960s and 70s (§§2-3 below) suggests that one justifies a set of questions through an ensemble of empirical demonstrations. This contrasts to decisions between theoretical alternatives through ‘crucial experiments'. When viewed along with other historical episodes, this case suggests a philosophical category of ‘demonstrations', distinguished from crucial tests and complementary in justificatory status to falsifying instances. The distinction also suggests specific strategies for scientists (§4). The Ox-Phos Controversy is an especially valuable case for studying theory development and scientific change, and for investigating the problems of disagreement, originally highlighted by Kuhn, where two incompatible conceptual or experimental gestalts converge on the same empirical domain (see also Gilbert and Mulkay 1984a; 1984b; Robinson 1984; 1986; Rowen 1986; Weber 1986; 1991; Allchin 1990; 1991).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.