Postdoctoral Fellowship in Studies in Science, Technology and Society.

斯坦普博士正在与彼得·加里森博士合作，在斯坦福大学进行博士后研究。他的研究集中在围绕科学哲学新途径的方法论问题，这些问题是自20世纪60年代S和70年代S推翻逻辑实证主义以来出现的。科学哲学家现在正密切关注科学史和当前的科学实践。使用案例研究的证据现在可以被认为是科学方法论研究的核心。然而，有一些，关于如何处理历史证据，甚至在科学哲学家之间也有相互矛盾的观点，他们同意这样的证据是重要的，并拒绝不可通约的论点(即，“革命性的”科学范例的倡导者不能有意义地与旧范例的倡导者对话，因为他们使用的理论术语有根本不同，“不可通约”的含义)与一些反实证主义者有关。史丹普博士正在考察三种方法论观点：托马斯尼克斯的观点、当地历史主义、劳丹对认识论的重写、规范自然主义和罗纳德吉尔的科学认知科学。Stump First博士明确阐述了这些立场，特别注意界定什么是“地方”或特定背景的方法规则的问题。他正在探索的第二个问题是如何从历史记录和当前科学实践中检验一般性和规范性规则。需要检验的深层问题是，是否有任何实质性的方法论规则具有合法的普遍性，或者是否所有规则都必须像当地历史学家所声称的那样，保持特定的背景。他试图用科学史和当前科学实践中的案例研究来解决这个问题。

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.