Philosophy of Science: What are the Key Journals in the Field?

8/10/2019 Philosophy of Science: What are the Key Journals in the Field?

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/philosophy-of-science-what-are-the-key-journals-in-the-field 1/9

Philosophy of Science: What are the Key Journals in the Field?Author(s): K. Brad WraySource: Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol. 72, No. 3 (May 2010), pp. 423-430Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40784326 .

Accessed: 23/12/2014 14:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Erkenntnis (1975-).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:18:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40784326?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/40784326?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer



Erkenn

2010)

72:423-430

DOI

10.1007/S10670-010-9214-6

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Philosophy fScience: What are theKeyJournals

in

the Field?

K. Brad

Wray

Received:

0

December 009

/Accepted: February

010/Published nline: March

2010

©

Springer

cience+BusinessMedia

B.V.

2010

Abstract

By

means of a citation

nalysis

aim to

determine hich

cholarly

journals

re most

mportant

n

the

ub-fieldf

philosophy

f science.

My analysis

shows hat he six most

mportantournals

n

the sub-field

re

Philosophy f

Sci-

ence,

British ournal

or

the

Philosophy f

Science,

Journal

f

Philosophy,

yn-

these,

tudies

n

History

nd

Philosophy f

Science,

nd Erkenntnis.

iven

hedata

presented

n

this

tudy,

heres little vidence hat

here

s such

field s the

historyand

philosophy

fscience

HPS).

Rather,

hilosophy

f science s most

properly

conceived f as

a

sub-fieldf

philosophy.

1

Introduction

Citation

nalyses

an reveal

a

lot aboutthe structuref a field r sub-field. he

patterns

hat

merge

n

a collection fcitations

an

help

us n

dentifying

he

ypical

citation orms or he

field,

nd which

ournals

mattermost

n

the field.

But,

the

patternsan also shed ight n therelationshipetween he field f interestnd

neighboring

ields r sub-fields.or

example, y tudying

itation

atterns

e

might

discover hat heresearchiterature

n

a

neighboring

ield

s

especially

elevant o

our field f nterest.

In

this

paper,

aim to examine he

sub-field

f

philosophy

f

science,

with

special

attention o its

relationship

o the

discipline

of

philosophy

nd the

neighboring

ub-field

f

history

f science.

My

aim s to

determine

hich

cholarly

journals

re most

mportant

n

the ub-fieldf

philosophy

f

science,

nd whether

history

f science

ournals

nd

general hilosophyournals

have been

important

venues

n

which

o

publish

esearch

n

the

philosophy

f science.

K. B.

Wray

El)

Department

f

Philosophy,

tate

University

f

New

York,

211

Campus

Center,

Oswego,

New York

13126,

USA

e-mail:

[email protected]

Ô

Springer







424

K. B.

Wray

Given

hedata

presented

n

this

tudy,

here s little vidence

hat here s such

field s

the

history

nd

philosophy

f science

HPS).

Rather,

hedata

suggest

hat

philosophy

f science s most

properly

onceived

f as a sub-fieldf

philosophy.

2

Getting

t the Core

Journals

My

aim

n

this

tudy

s to

dentify

he ore

ournals

n

philosophy

f science.

Core

journals

rethose

ournals

hat

ublish

he

most

mportant

ontributions

n

a

field.

n

an effort

o uncover hecore

ournals

n

the sub-field

f

philosophy

f

science,

propose

to examine

what

scholarlyournals

are most

frequently

ited

n three

sources,

wo

ompanions

evoted o the

philosophy

fscience nd

a

reader

n a

key

enduringopic

n the

field,

herealism/anti-realism

ebate.

A

companion

s intendedo be a

comprehensive

ndauthoritative

urvey

f a

field,

a

guide

o the

major

hemes,movements,

ebates

nd

topics

n a

field.

hus,

it s meant o touch

n all the

key opics,

nd to

present

hematerial

n

a

thorough

non-partisan

anner.

ndeed,

his

s whatbothBlackwell's

A

Companion

o the

Philosophy f

Science and The

RoutledgeCompanion

o

Philosophy f

Science

purport

o do

(see

Newton-Smith

000 and Psillos and Curd

2008).

The Blackwell

Companion

overs

wide

range

f

topics

n

ts81

articles,

ncluding

he

aradoxes

f

confirmation,

xplanation,

olism,

nference

o

thebest

xplanation,

nd

simplicity,

to ist

ust

five

opics.

here

re,

s

well,

ntries n

key

hinkers ho

have ontributed

to thefield,ncluding uine,Russell,Whewell,Bohr andBerkeley. ach entry

includes list

of referencesnd

suggestions

or

further

eading.

The

Routledge

Companion

ontains 5 articles

rouped

ntofour road

ategories:

istorical nd

philosophical

ontext, ebates,

Concepts,

nd Individual ciences. Entries

lso

contain ists f referencesnd some

suggestions

or urther

eading.

Clearly,

if the articles

in

these

Companions

are as

comprehensive

nd

authoritative

s

they

im to

be,

then

hey

will be ideal sourcesfrom

whichto

determine

hat

he

key ournals

n

thefield

re. The sources

n

thereferences

nd

suggested eadings

will

undoubtedly

e drawn rom he ore

of thefield.

The realism/anti-realismebate

s one of the central

opics

n

philosophy

f

science. t s anenduringopic s well.DavidPapineau's 1996)edited olume, he

Philosophy f

Science,

in

the Oxford

Readings

n

Philosophy

eries,

collects

together

hirteen

ey

papers

n

this

ssue,

papers

hat ad been

published reviously

elsewhere

nd at the ime f

editing

were

egarded

s

important

ontributions

o

the

debate.Most re authored

y

eaders

n

the

ield,

ncluding

uch

mportantigures

s

Nancy

Cartwright,

as

van

Fraassen,

arry

Laudan,

Richard

Boyd,

and

Wesley

Salmon.

Thus,

his ollection hould e

an deal

place

to determine

hat he

eading

journals

re

n which

hilosophers

f science eek to

publish

heir esearch.

3 The Data

In

this

ection,

reportmy findings

rom n

analysis

f the references

n these

sources

o

articles

ublished

n

scholarlyournals.

A

few emarksre n order efore

Ö

Springer







Philosophy

f Science:

What re the

Key

Journals

n theField?

425

I

provide

summary

f

thedata.

havenot ncluded

n

the ount

itations

o

books,

or book

series,

ike the

Minnesota

tudies

n

Philosophy

f

Science,

r conference

proceeding,

ike the

Philosophy

f Science Association

PSA)

biennial

onference

proceedings. yaim s to focus nscholarlyournals.And, ncountingitationsn

the

Papineau

volume,

have

ncluded

1)

the rticles

nthologized

n the

volume,

(2)

the rticles

ited

n

the

ntroduction

nd

anthologized

rticles,

nd

3)

the rticles

listed

n the

nnotated

ibliography.

I

will

consider

he three

ources

n

order

f

publication,

eginning

with he

oldest,

apineau'

edited

eader.

istedbelow

are thethirteen

ost ited

ournals.

Rank

Journal

itle

Citations

1 PhilosophyfScience 29

2

British ournal

or

the

Philosophy

f

Science

1

Journal

f Philosophy

18

4

Synthese

13

5

Erkenntnis

8

Nous

8

Studies

n

History

nd

Philosophy

f

Science

8

8

Philosophical

uarterly

6

9

Dialéctica

5

10

Philosophical

tudies

4

Philosophical

eview

4

12

Mind

3

Philosophical

opics

3

An additional

our

ournals

were ited

wice

ach,

and

an additional

0

ournals

were

cited

once each.

A totalof 27 different

ournals

were cited

n this

edited

volume.

Consider

now

the

Blackwell

Companion.

isted below

are the fifteen

journals

rom

which rticles

re

most

requently

ited

n the

companion.

Rank

Journal

itle

Citations

1

Philosophy f

Science

3

1

2

British ournal

or

the

Philosophy f

Science

29

3

Journal

f Philosophy

27

4

Philosophical

eview

13

5

Synthese

10

6

Erkenntnis

7

Studies

n

History

nd

Philosophyf

Science

7

8

Australasian ournal

f Philosophy

6

Mind

6

Nous

6

Ö

Springer







426

K. B.

Wray

Table continued

Rank

Journalitle

Citations

PhysicalReview 6

12

American

hilosophical

uarterly

5

1

Analysis

4

Journal

f

Symbolic

ogic

4

Philosophical

opics

4

One

journal

was cited three

imes,

n additional 2

ournals

were cited twice

each,

and an additional

6

journals

were each cited once.

Hence,

a totalof 74

differentournalswere ited n the ompanion.

Finally,

onsider he

Routledge ompanion.

ere list the 13

most

frequently

cited

ournals.

Rank Journalitle

Citations

1

Philosophy

f

Science

39

2

British ournal

or

the

Philosophy f

Science

28

3

Journal

f

Philosophy

27

4

Synthese

20

5 Erkenntnis 15

6

Mind

9

Philosophical

eview

9

Studies n

History

nd

Philosophy

f

Science

9

9 Studies n

Hist, nd Phil,

of Biology

nd the

Biomedicai ciences

6

Studies n Hist, nd Phil,

of

Modern

hysics

6

11

Philosophical

tudies

5

12

Dialéctica

4

International

tudies

n

thePhil,

of

Science 4

Eight

dditional

ournals

were ited

hree imes

ach,

11

ournals

re

cited

wice

each,

and

42

journals

re citedonce each.

A

total f 74

journals

were

ited

n this

companion.

What s most

triking

bout hesedata s the mount f

agreement

etween

he

three ists.

The threemost

frequently

ited

ournals

re the ame on all three ists.

And,

ix of

the evenmost

requently

ited

ournals

n the hree ists re the ame.

They

are:

Philosophy f

Science,

BritishJournal

or

the

Philosophy f

Science,

Journal

f

Philosophy,ynthese,

rkenntnis,

nd

Studies

n

History

nd

Philosophy

ofScience.Clearly, hese are thekey ournals n the sub-field f philosophyf

science.

Two ofthe

ournals

re

exclusively hilosophy

fscience

ournals:

hilosophyf

Science,

nd

British ournal

or

the

Philosophyf

Science.

Philosophyf

Science s

Ö

Springer









428

K. B.

Wray

90

History

nd

Philosophy

of Science

journals,

thus

uggesting

hatHPS

constitutes

a field.

Not

surprisingly,

ith

such an extensive

list,

all of

the six core

journals

identified bove

are

on

this list.

In

fact,

the

list also

contains a numberof

general

philosophy ournals, includingNous, and Australasian Journalof Philosophy,but

not

Mind or

Philosophical

Review

(see

European

Science

Foundation

2007).

The data drawn

from he three

ources mentioned bove

raise

questions

about the

existence

of such a field.

The

only journals

that

could

rightfully

e

regarded

as

history

nd

philosophy

of science

ournals

are

Studies in

History

nd

Philosophy of

Science

(SHPS),

Studies in

History

nd

Philosophy of

Modern

Physics,

and Studies

in

History

and

Philosophy of Biology

and

the

Biomedicai Sciences.

SHPS ranks

about 6th

on all three ists. And

the other two

ournals

only appear

on one of the

lists.

Further,

o

history f

science

journal

is listed in

the

top

15

journals

cited

in

the

Blackwell

companion,

or

the

top

13

ournals

cited

in

the

Papineau

reader,

or the

top

13

ournals

cited n

the

Routledge companion.

Perhaps

even more

telling

gainst

the

existence of

HPS as a field s

the factthat here

s not a

single

citation o

the

ournal

Isis in

any

of

the three sources.

Isis is

perhaps

the most

importantournal

in

the

history

f

science,

and is

published

for he

History

f

Science

Society

HSS).

Hence,

if

there

were such a

field as

history

nd

philosophy

of

science,

one would

expect

scholars

in

that

field to be

citing publications

in

the

leading history

of science

journal.

But,

it

appears

that

philosophy

of

science

is

largely

independent

of the

history

f science.

In the 1970s, Thomas Kuhn (1977) insisted that the historyof science and

philosophy

f science

are

separate

and

distinct

isciplines

(4).

He noted that ven

at

Princeton'sHPS

program,

where

he was

teaching

t the

time,

the

historians nd

the

philosophers

of

science

pursue

different,

hough

overlapping,

ourses of

study,

take different

xaminations,

nd receive

their

degrees

from

different

epartments

(4).3

Kuhn

claimed that the

two fields differ n

a

number of their

constitutive

characteristics,

f

which the most

general

and

apparent

is

their

goals

(1977,

pp.

4-5).

As a

result,

he

claims,

no one can

practice

... both

[disciplines]

at

the

same

time

(5).4

Our data

suggest

that Kuhn is

correct. n

fact,

it

seems

that

philosophers

f

science

generally

do not draw on

the work of

historians f science.

Ron Giere (1973) also expressed skepticism about there being an intimate

relationship

between

the

history

of

science and the

philosophy

of

science. Giere

argued

that the

primary

elationships

or

philosophy

f science are with

philosophy

and

science.

Likewise,

the

primary

relationships

for

history

of

science are

with

history

nd science

(1973,

p.

296).

Giere

suggested

that

the

proliferation

f

centres,

departments

nd

programmes

for

history

and/or

philosophy

of science

during

the

[1960s]

shows

that neitherhistorians

nor

philosophers

of science are

happy

with their

parentdisciplines

(ibid).

Giere

may

be

right

hat

philosophers

of

science

are more

comfortablewith

historiansof science than

other

philosophers,

but,

given

their

ublication

nd citation

practices,

s revealed

by

thiscitation

tudy,

3

It is

worth

oting

hat here s

no

longer

Department

f

History

nd

Philosophy

f Science at

Princeton.

4

Kuhn

ontinuedo

maintainhat he wo

fields re distinct

see

Kuhn

2000,

p.

316).

Ô

Springer







Philosophy

f Science:

What re the

Key

Journalsn

theField?

429

philosophers

f

science seem

to

identify

s

philosophers.

When

they

are not

publishing

n

specialtyournals,

hey

im

to

place

their

esearch

n

the

hilosophy

f

science

n

general

hilosophyournals.

Indeed, he ack of connection etween hilosophyf science and historyf

science also shows tself

ather

ronically

n

a

recent ocus

piece

in

Isis.

Focus

pieces

are

usually

omposed

of

four

ontributionsrom

eaderson

the

topic

of

concern. he

topic

of

the Focus

piece

was

Changing

irections n

History

nd

Philosophy

f

Science,

and

included

ontributionsrom

wo

philosophers

f

science nd two

historiansf

science.There s

virtually

o

overlap

n

the

opics

f

concernof the historians'

apers

and the

philosophers'

apers.

In

fact,

the

philosophers

f science ook

he

pportunity

o examine

he

history

f

philosophy

f

science,

atherhan he

history

f

science nd

tsrelevance

o

philosophy

f science

(see Richardson 008 and Friedman008).5

There are also a

number

f

graduate

rograms

n

Logic,

Methodology

nd

Philosophy

f Science

LMPS).

The

London School of

Economics nd

Political

Science and the

University

f

California, rvine,

ach

have such a

program.

Interestingly,nly

ne

ogic ournal

ppears

n our ists f

frequently

ited

ournals,

TheJournal

fSymbolic

ogic,

nd

t ranks

uite

ow as far s

citation

requency

s

concerned. his s not o

say

that

ogic

plays

no

role

n

philosophy

f science.

But,

ourdata

suggest

hat he ore

contributionso

philosophy

f sciencehave

notbeen

published

n

logic ournals.

5

Concluding

Remarks

The

point

f this

tudy

as been

to

dentify

hat he

ore

ournals

n

the

philosophy

of

science

re.

Neither

ogic ournals

or

history

f science

ournals

re

key

venues

for he

publication

f research

elevant o the

philosophy

f science.

Much of the

core

research

n

philosophy

f science

has been

published

n

five

key ournals

hat

are

either oncerned

xclusively

with

philosophy

f

science or

give

extensive

coverage

o

topics

n

the

philosophy

f

science:

Philosophy

f

Science,

British

Journal

or

the

Philosophy f

Science,

ynthese,

rkenntnis,

nd

Studies

n

History

and Philosophy f Science.Otherwise, ey contributionso thephilosophy f

science

have been

published

n

the

eading eneral

hilosophyournals:

Journal

f

Philosophy,

ind,Nous,

nd

Philosophical

eview.

Given he

results

f this

tudy,

philosophy

f

science s more

properly

onceived f as a

sub-field f

philosophy,

ratherhan s

part

fan

nterdisciplinary

ield

nvolving

ither

he

history

f science

or

logic.

5

Ironically,

n

thenext

ssueof sis the

philosopher

f science

teven rench

ngageshistory

f science

and ts

relationship

o the

philosophy

f sciencemore

irectly

han ither

ichardsonr

Friedman id

n

their

ieces,

n his

contributiono a

focus n the

heme f

counterfactualsndthe

historianf cience

see

French

008).

Ö

Springer







430

K.

B.

Wray

References

European

cience Foundation.

2007).

ERIH

initial

ist:

History

nd

philosophy

f

science

2007) .

French,. (2008).Genuine ossibilitiesnthe cientificast ndhowtospot hem,sis,99(3),568-575.

Friedman,

.

(2008).

History

nd

philosophy

f science n a new

key.

sis, 99,

125-134.

Giere,

R.

(1973).

History

nd

philosophy

f

science: ntimate

elationship

r

marriage

f

convenience?

British ournal

or

the

Philosophy f

Science,

4(3),

282-297.

Hempel,

.

G.

(1975).

The

old and new

Erkenntnis .

rkenntnis,

,

'-b.

Institute

or

cientific

nformation.

2003).

Arts nd

humanitiesitation

ndex

history

nd

philosophy

of science

ournal

ist.

[http^/www.isinet.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jresults.cgi;

ccessed

09/01/03

:12

PM].

Kuhn,

. S.

(1977).

The relation etween he

history

ndthe

philosophy

f

cience.The

ssential ension:

Selected tudies n

scientific

raditionnd

change pp.

3-30).

University

f

Chicago

Press:

Chicago.

Kuhn,

. S.

(2000).

Theroad ince

tructure:

hilosophical ssays,

970-1993,

with n

autobiographical

interview,

dited

y

J.Conant nd J.

Haugeland. hicago:

University

f

Chicago

Press.

Newton-Smith,

. H.

(Ed.). (2000). Companion o thephilosophy f science.Oxford:BlackwellPublishersimited.

Papineau,

.

(Ed.). (1996). Philosophy f

cience.Oxford:

xford

niversity

ress.

Psillos, .,

&

Curd,

M.

(Eds.). (2008).

The

Routledge

ompanion

o

philosophy f

science.New York:

Routledge.

Reisch,

G.

(2005).

How the

cold war

transformed

hilosophy f

science.

Cambridge:

Cambridge

University

ress.

Richardson,

.

(2008).

Scientific

hilosophy

s a

topic

for

history

f

science.

sis, 99,

88-96.

Ö

Springer

This content downloaded from 148 206 159 132 on Tue 23 Dec 2014 14:18:00 PM


Documents

Philosophy of Science: What are the Key Journals in the Field?