Mathematics – Logic
Scientific paper
Oct 2002
adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2002phdt.........1i&link_type=abstract
Thesis (PhD). CARLETON UNIVERSITY (CANADA), Source DAI-A 63/04, p. 1529, Oct 2002, 161 pages.
Mathematics
Logic
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Arthur Stanley Eddington
Scientific paper
This project presents a case-study of a scientific controversy that occurred in theoretical astrophysics nearly seventy years ago following the conceptual discovery of a novel phenomenon relating to the evolution and structure of stellar matter, known as the limiting mass. The ensuing debate between the author of the finding, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar and his primary critic, Arthur Stanley Eddington, witnessed both scientists trying to convince one another, as well as the astrophysical community, that their respective positions on the issue was the correct one. Since there was no independent criterion—that is, no observational evidence—at the time of the dispute that could have been drawn upon to test the validity of the limiting mass concept, a logical, objective resolution to the controversy was not possible. In this respect, I argue that the dynamics of the Chandrasekhar-Eddington debate succinctly resonates with Kennefick's notion of the Theoreticians' Regress. However, whereas this model predicts that such a regress can be broken if both parties in a dispute come to agree on who was in error and collaborate on a calculation whose technical foundation can be agreed to, I argue that a more pragmatic path by which the Theoreticians' Regress is broken is when one side in a dispute is able to construct its argument as being more plausible than that of its opponent, and is so successful in doing so, that its opposition is subsequently forced to withdraw from the debate. In order to adequately deal with the construction of plausibility in the context of scientific controversies, I draw upon Harvey's Plausibility Model as well as Pickering's work on the role socio-cultural factors play in the resolution of intellectual disputes. It is believed that the ideas embedded in these social- relativist-constructivist perspectives provide the most parsimonious explanation as to the reasons for the genesis and ultimate closure of this particular scientific controversy.
No associations
LandOfFree
Plausibility and the Theoreticians' Regress: Constructing the evolutionary fate of stars does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.
If you have personal experience with Plausibility and the Theoreticians' Regress: Constructing the evolutionary fate of stars, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Plausibility and the Theoreticians' Regress: Constructing the evolutionary fate of stars will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-1861815