Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T22:39:11.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Between Science and Technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Joseph Agassi
Joseph Agassi*
Affiliation:
Boston University and Tel-Aviv University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Basic research or fundamental research is distinct from both pure and applied research, in that it is pure research with expected useful results. The existence of basic or fundamental research is problematic, at least for both inductivists and instrumentalists, but also for Popper. Assuming scientific research to be the search for explanatory conjectures and for refutations, and assuming technology to be the search of conjectures and some corroborations, we can easily place basic or fundamental research between science and technology as a part of their overlap. As a bonus, the present view of basic or fundamental research as an overlap explains the specific hardship basic research workers encounter.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , March 1980, pp. 82 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

A short version of this paper was read at the Lansing Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (1972). The audience in the meeting has kindly favored me with a friendly and stimulating critical discussion. I have tried to make use of that discussion by expanding this paper, by adding points triggered by Professor Noretta Koertge's comment, and by valuable points made by Professor J. O. Wisdom and by other commentators. The manuscript was carefully corrected by James Hullett, by I. C. Jarvie, and by Noretta Koertge. My gratitude to them all.

The final version was prepared while I was a guest of the Center for Interdisciplinary Research, Bielefeld, on an Alexander von Humboldt senior fellowship.

References

Agassi, J. (1957), “Duhem versus Galileo” in The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 8 pp. 237–48.10.1093/bjps/VIII.31.237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agassi, J. (1961), “The Role of Corroboration in Popper's Methodology” in Australarion Journal of Philosophy 39, pp. 82–91; reprinted in Agassi (1975), pp. 40–50.Google Scholar
Agassi, J. (1966), “The Confusion Between Science and Technology in Standard Philosophies of Science,” Technology and Culture 7, pp. 348–66; reprinted in Agassi (1975), pp. 282–303.10.2307/3101933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agassi, J. (1968), “Science in Flux, Footnote to Popper,” in Robert S. Cohen and Marx W. Wartofsky (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 3, pp. 293–323. Reprinted in Agassi (1975), pp. 9–50.10.1007/978-94-010-3508-8_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agassi, J. (1971), “On Explaining the Trial of Galileo” in Organon 8, pp. 137–166.Google Scholar
Agassi, J. (1975), Science in Flux, Boston Studies (Vol. 28), Dordrecht and Boston: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-010-1810-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agassi, J. (1976), “The Future of Berkeley's Instrumentalism,” in International Studies in Philosophy 7(1975) pp. 167–178.10.5840/intstudphil1975710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agassi, J. (1977), Towards Rational Philosophical Anthropology, The Hague: Nijhoff.10.1007/978-94-010-1095-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacon, Sir Francis (1920), Novum Organum.Google Scholar
Broderick, James (1928), The Life and Work of Blessed Robert, Cardinal Bellarmino, S.J. 1541–1621, vol. II, London.Google Scholar
Bunge, Mario (1964), “Phenomenological Theories,” The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy (edited by Bunge, M.), London: The Free Press of Gencoe, pp. 234–254.Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre (1954), Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, (translated by Wiener, P. P.), Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691233857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eder, Josef Maria (1905), Geschichte der Photographie, Wilhelm Krapp, Halle a.S.Google Scholar
Gernsheim, Helmut and Alison, (1965), A Concise History of Photography, New York: Grosset & Dunlap.Google Scholar
Harrison, W. Jerome F.G.S. (1887), A History of Photography, New York: Scovili Manufacturing Company.Google Scholar
Layton, Edwin (1971), “Mirror Image Twins: The Communities of Science and Technology in 19th Century America,” in Technology and Culture 19, pp. 562–580.10.2307/3102571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koestler, Arthur (1959), The Sleepwalkers, Penguin (1964) first published Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
Newhall, Beaumont (1964), The History of Photography from 1839 to the present day. Revised and enlarged edition, New York: The Museum of Modern Art.Google Scholar
Newhall, Beaumont (1967), Latent Image, New York: George Eastman House.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson of London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1963), Conjectures and Refutations, London: Routledge and Kegal Paul Ltd., and New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Santillana, Giorgio (1955), The Crime of Galileo, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar