:<i>Styles of Scientific Thinking in the European Tradition</i>

Magruder, Kerry; Alistair-Crombie,

doi:10.2307/2542809

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In comparison, our approach here builds on Hacking's more epistemological conceptualization of styles in which theorizing styles are “built on fundamental cognitive capacities” (Hacking, 2009, p. 27) and associated forms of logical reasoning that cut across scientific communities. Hacking (1992) developed his perspective motivated by figuring out the common styles of inferential reasoning that historically evolved within the sciences (Crombie, 1994) and as coupled to methodological innovations and developments such as statistical inference (Hacking, 1965). To put this in perspective, in Hacking's notion of styles (i.e., common ways of logical reasoning), what we need in order to understand a theoretical claim are the presuppositions of the style of reasoning (e.g., we need to think and argue in a certain way or know the methods and the type of evidence of that style), whereas for Fleck (1935/1970), the focus is on identifying the “fund of knowledge” of the thought style, that is, the stock of socially shared assumptions and ideas of a particular thought collective.…”

Section: Styles Of Theorizingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unlocking the power of diversity for supply chain knowledge: Is pluralism in theorizing styles the key?

Cornelissen,

Stephens,

Matthews

2024

J Supply Chain Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors reflect on the opportunities for diversity in supply chain research by examining the prevalent modes of theorizing in the field. This examination focuses on identifying common styles of theorizing in supply chain management research, which are defined as specific modes of reasoning to make inferences about supply chain phenomena. Armed with this definition, the authors elaborate how research in the field has for the most part hinged on a propositional style as a common base for theorizing and theoretical contributions. The analysis that is provided emphasizes the limits of this style, particularly when it is considered as the preferred form for all theoretical contributions. The authors, in turn, make the case for a pluralistic system of knowledge production that supports the use of multiple theorizing styles that, when used alongside one another in a coordinated or co‐oriented manner, will lead to a better understanding of supply chain management phenomena.

show abstract

Section: Styles Of Theorizingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unlocking the power of diversity for supply chain knowledge: Is pluralism in theorizing styles the key?

Cornelissen,

Stephens,

Matthews

2024

J Supply Chain Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research programme (Lakatos, 1968;Musgrave, 1976) Research tradition (Laudan, 1977) Field (Darden, 2005;Darden & Craver, 2002;Darden & Maull, 1977) Practice (Kitcher, 1984(Kitcher, , 1989 Style of reasoning (Crombie, 1994;Hacking, 1994) System of practice (Chang, 2012(Chang, , 2014 Scientific perspective (Giere, 2006;Massimi, 2018) Exemplary practice (Shan, 2020a(Shan, , 2020b Table…”

Section: An Overview Of the Main Philosophical Analyses Of Scientific...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Historiography of Scientific Revolutions: A Philosophical Reflection

Shan

2023

Historiographies of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific revolution has been one of the most controversial topics in the history and philosophy of science. Yet it has been no consensus on what is the best unit of analysis in the historiography of scientific revolutions. Nor is there a consensus on what best explains the nature of scientific revolutions. This chapter provides a critical examination of the historiography of scientific revolutions. It begins with a brief introduction to the historical development of the concept of scientific revolution, followed by an overview of the five main philosophical accounts of scientific revolutions. It then challenges two historiographical assumptions of the philosophical analyses of scientific revolutions.

show abstract

“…. Relevant secondary literature includesAriew (1995),Cohen (1994),Cunningham and Williams (1993),Iliffe (1998), Magruder (1995,Pumfrey (1997),Schuster (1990). 2 For Duhem, see e.g.Kusch (1991, pp.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflexivity, Relativism, Microhistory: Three Desiderata for Historical Epistemologies

Kusch

2011

Erkenn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper tries to motivate three desiderata for historical epistemologies: (a) that they should be reflective about the pedigree of their conceptual apparatus; (b) that they must face up to the potentially relativistic consequences of their historicism; and (c) that they must not forget the hard-won lessons of microhistory (i.e. historical events must be explained causally; historical events must not be artificially divided into internal/intellectual and external/social ''factors'' or ''levels''; and constructed series of homogenous events must not be treated as quasiorganisms). Ian Hacking's work on styles of reasoning and Lorraine Daston's and Peter Galison's investigation into epistemic virtues are used to identify the costs of neglecting these desiderata.

show abstract

:Styles of Scientific Thinking in the European Tradition

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Unlocking the power of diversity for supply chain knowledge: Is pluralism in theorizing styles the key?

Unlocking the power of diversity for supply chain knowledge: Is pluralism in theorizing styles the key?

The Historiography of Scientific Revolutions: A Philosophical Reflection

Reflexivity, Relativism, Microhistory: Three Desiderata for Historical Epistemologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About