Science, it is frequently argued, merits its primacy in its knowledge claims because of its experimental foundations. It is not based on prejudice, superstition, astrology, common sense beliefs or even divine revelations, but rather on the disciplined, public interrogation of nature known as the "experimental method." Recent scholarship in the sociology of science, however, has challenged this presumed experimental foundation for modern science. One of the leading sites for debate about the experimental method has centered around Robert Boyle, the 17th century chemist who was one of the most important original exponents of the experimental method. Advocates of this revisionist view argue that Boyle's experimental practices "involved in the generation and justification of proper knowledge were part of the settlement and protection of a certain kind of social order." Under her previous grant, Dr. Sargent began a "counter-attack" on this social constructivist view of Boyle and the philosophy of experiment. She argues that Boyle advocated the experimental method not for social and political purposes but for the advance of science. Under this new grant, she is continuing her efforts to provide a systematic account of the details of Boyle's experimental practice and the manner in which he defended it against the serious criticisms of other natural philosophers of his day. Not only will this study help to explicate Boyle's sophisticated arguments in favor of the experimental method, but it promises to make valuable contributions to current debates in the philosophy and social studies of science about the role of experiment in the advance of science.
