Working with Dr. Peter Galison, Dr. Stump is undertaking a postdoctoral fellowship to study and conduct research at Stanford University. His research is centering on methodological issues surrounding new approaches to the philosophy of science which have arisen since the overthrow of logical positivism in the 1960's and 70's. Philosophers of science are now paying close attention to the history of science and to current scientific practice. The use of evidence from case studies can now be taken for granted as central to studies of scientific methodology. There are, however, competing views on what to do with historical evidence even among philosophers of science who agree that such evidence is important and who reject the incommensurability thesis (i.e. that advocates of a "revolutionary" scientific paradigm cannot meaningfully speak to advocates of the old paradigm because the theoretical terms they use have radically different, "incommensurable" meanings) associated with some anti-positivists. Dr. Stump is examining three methodological positions: Thomas Nickles view, "local historicism," Larry Laudan's reworking of epistemology, "normative naturalism," and Ronald Giere's "cognitive science of science." Dr. Stump first is clearly formulating these positions, paying special attention to the issue of defining what is meant by "local" or context specific methodological rules. The second issue he is exploring is how to test general and prescriptive rules from the historical record and current scientific practice. The deep issue to be tested is whether any substantial methodological rules are legitimately universal or if all must remain context specific as the local historicists claim. He is attempting to settle this question using case studies from the history of science and current scientific practice.
