Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9knnw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-20T13:00:34.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Ad Hoc Hypotheses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

J. Christopher Hunt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article I review attempts to define the term “ad hoc hypothesis,” focusing on the efforts of, among others, Karl Popper, Jarrett Leplin, and Gerald Holton. I conclude that the term is unhelpful; what is “ad hoc” seems to be a judgment made by particular scientists not on the basis of any well-established definition but rather on their individual aesthetic senses. Further, a hypothesis considered ad hoc can apparently be retroactively declared non–ad hoc on the basis of subsequent data, rendering the term meaningless.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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

‡

I would like to thank three anonymous referees for their comments on this manuscript, revision of which was supported by Prince George's Community College's sabbatical program. Many thanks to Richard Burian, Richard Hirsh, Barbara Reeves, Steve Weiss, and Eric Saidel on earlier versions of the work. Special thanks to Joseph C. Pitt for all his helpful feedback and support. Thanks also to Spencer Weart and George Gale for permission to quote from unpublished sources they control and to Jefferson Sauter for a timely favor during the proofing process.

References

Bondi, Hermann, and Gold, Thomas. 1948. “The Steady-State Theory of the Universe.” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 108:252–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brush, Stephen G. 1989. “Prediction and Theory Evaluation: The Case of Light-Bending.” Science 246:1124–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brush, Stephen G.. 1995. “Dynamics of Theory Change: The Role of Predictions.” In PSA 1994: Proceedings of the 1994 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 2, ed. Hull, David, Forbes, M., and Burian, Richard, 133–45. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Brush, Stephen G.. 1999. “Why Was Relativity Accepted?” Perspectives in Physics 1:184–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comte, Auguste. 1853. The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte. vol. 1. Trans. Harriet Martineau. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
Darden, Lindley. 1987. “Viewing the History of Science as Compiled Hindsight.” AI Magazine 8 (2): 33–41.Google Scholar
Darden, Lindley. 1992. “Strategies for Anomaly Resolution.” Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 15:251–73.Google Scholar
Darden, Lindley. 1995. “Exemplars, Abstractions, and Anomalies: Representations and Theory Change in Mendelian and Molecular Genetics.” In Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences, ed. Wolters, Gereon and Lennox, James G., 137–58. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert. 1905/1998. “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.” In Einstein's Miraculous Year: Five Papers That Changed the Face of Physics, ed. Stachel, J., 123–60. Repr. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul. 1970. “Against Method: An Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge.” In Analyses and Methods of Physics and Psychology, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4, ed. M. Radner and S. Einokur, 17–130. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, Adolf. 1964. “The Bearing of Philosophy on the History of Science.” Science 143:1406–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl Gustav. 1966. Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hesse, Mary. 1961. Forces and Fields: The Concept of Action at a Distance in the History of Physics. London: Nelson.Google Scholar
Holton, Gerald. 1988. Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hoyle, Fred. 1948. “A New Model for the Expanding Universe.” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 108:372–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kragh, Helge. 1996. Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A., 91–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leplin, Jarrett. 1975. “The Concept of an Ad Hoc Hypothesis.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 5 (4): 309–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllister, James W. 1996. Beauty and Revolution in Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan. 1984. “A Case for Scientific Realism.” In Scientific Realism, ed. Leplin, Jarrett, 8–40. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Michelson, Albert Abraham, and Morley, Edward. 1887. “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether.” American Journal of Science 34 (203): 333–45.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1965. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1977. “Hilary Putnam's ‘Scientific Explanation’: An Editorial Summary-Abstract.” In Structure of Scientific Theories, ed. Suppe, Frederick, 424–33. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Sciama, Dennis W. 1955. “Evolutionary Processes in Cosmology.” Advancement of Science 12 (45): 38–42.Google Scholar
Sciama, Dennis W.. 1959. The Unity of the Universe. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Sciama, Dennis W.. 1960. “New Developments in Cosmology.” La Nuova Critica 11:3–16.Google Scholar
Sciama, Dennis W.. 1963. “On the Interpretation of Radio Source Counts.” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 126:195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sciama, Dennis W.. 1964. “On a Possible Class of Galactic Radio Sources.” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 128:49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sciama, Dennis W.. 1966a. “Cosmological Aspects of High-Energy Astrophysics.” In High Energy Astrophysics: Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” Course XXXV, Held at Varenna, Italy, July 12–24, 1965, ed. Gratton, L., 418–63. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sciama, Dennis W.. 1966b. “On the Origin of the Microwave Background Radiation.” Nature 211:277–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sciama, Dennis W., and Saslaw, William C.. 1966. “Distribution of Quasi-Stellar Radio Sources in Steady State Cosmology.” Nature 210:348–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar