Scientific progress with an institutional aim

Abstract Darrell Rowbottom has been an active participant in debates about scientific progress. In his recent work, Scientific Progress (2023), he gives a critical summary of the rival proposals and arguments during the last 15 years. But, more interestingly, Rowbottom explains the lack of consensus among philosophers of science by questioning the mainstream view that science is progressive by objective standards. Inspired by J. L. Mackie’s error theory in meta-ethics, he challenges the thesis that science has overarching shared or corporate aims, concluding that the criteria of scientific progress are ultimately local and subjective. This paper evaluates Rowbottom’s argument by defending an institutional account of the aim of science and by separating the aims of science from the standards of its progress.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Asian Journal of Philosophy
Published
2025-04-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s44204-025-00282-y
Primary Topic
Philosophy and History of Science
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Scientific progress with an institutional aim

Ilkka Niiniluoto
Asian Journal of Philosophy
Philosophy and History of Science
article

Scientific progress with an institutional aim

Ilkka Niiniluoto
article en

Abstract

Abstract Darrell Rowbottom has been an active participant in debates about scientific progress. In his recent work, Scientific Progress (2023), he gives a critical summary of the rival proposals and arguments during the last 15 years. But, more interestingly, Rowbottom explains the lack of consensus among philosophers of science by questioning the mainstream view that science is progressive by objective standards. Inspired by J. L. Mackie’s error theory in meta-ethics, he challenges the thesis that science has overarching shared or corporate aims, concluding that the criteria of scientific progress are ultimately local and subjective. This paper evaluates Rowbottom’s argument by defending an institutional account of the aim of science and by separating the aims of science from the standards of its progress.

Asian Journal of PhilosophyVol. 4(1)
Helsinki Institute of Physics (FI)
Helsingin Yliopisto
Openalex Percentile: Top 87%
Philosophy and History of Science
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.