Search

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.08.018 Byline: Hasok Chang (a), Sabina Leonelli (b) Keywords: Theory-choice; Epistemic values; Radiation; Simplicity; Explanatory power; Causal explanation Abstract: We continue our discussion of the competing arguments in favour of the unified theory and the pluralistic theory of radiation advanced by three nineteenth-century pioneers: Herschel, Melloni, and Draper. Our narrative is structured by a consideration of the epistemic criteria relevant to theory-choice; the epistemic focus highlights many little-known aspects of this relatively well-known episode. We argue that the acceptance of light-heat unity (and of the unified theory of radiation more generally) in this period cannot be credibly justified on the basis of common evaluative criteria such as simplicity and standard notions of explanatory power. Whether the consensus was justified by some other criteria remains an open question. Author Affiliation: (a) Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK (b) Faculteit Wijsbegeerte 13A.30, Vrije Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Article History: Received 10 November 2004; Revised 21 April 2005

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.06.010 Byline: Hasok Chang (a), Sabina Leonelli (b) Keywords: Macedonio Melloni; John William Draper; William Herschel; Infrared; Observation; Theory-choice Abstract: Hardly any ontological result of modern science is more firmly established than the fact that infrared radiation differs from light only in wavelength; this is part of the modern conception of the continuous spectrum of electromagnetic radiation reaching from radio waves to gamma radiation. Yet, like many such evident truths, the light-infrared unity was an extremely difficult thing to establish. We examine the competing arguments in favour of the unified and pluralistic theories of radiation, as put forward in the first half of the nineteenth century by three of the most important early pioneers of the study of radiation: Herschel, Melloni and Draper. In this part of the paper, we conclude that there were no compelling reasons of observational adequacy to prefer the unified theory to the pluralistic theory. (Whether there were other conclusive reasons for that preference is the question addressed in Part 2 of the paper.) Author Affiliation: (a) Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK (b) Faculteit Wijsbegeerte 13A.30, Vrije Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Article History: Received 10 November 2004; Revised 21 April 2005

The arguments that infrared radiation differs from light only in wavelength are examined in favor of the unified and pluralistic theories of radiation put forward by Herschel, Melloni and Draper the three important early pioneers of the study of radiation. It was felt that in terms of observational adequacy the pluralistic theory was equally good as a unified theory long after a majority of top researchers accepted the unified theory.

We examine the criteria used to validate the use of nonhuman organisms in North-American alcohol addiction research from the 1950s to the present day. We argue that this field, where the similarities between behaviors in humans and non-humans are particularly difficult to assess, has addressed questions of model validity by transforming the situatedness of non-human organisms into an experimental tool. We demonstrate that model validity does not hinge on the standardization of one type of organism in isolation, as often the case with genetic model organisms. Rather, organisms are viewed as necessarily situated: they cannot be understood as a model for human behavior in isolation from their environmental conditions. Hence the environment itself is standardized as part of the modeling process; and model validity is assessed with reference to the environmental conditions under which organisms are studied. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]