Postdoctoral Fellowship in Studies in Science, Technology and Society.

Stump博士与Peter Galison博士合作， 博士后奖学金学习和进行研究， 斯坦福大学。 他的研究主要集中在 围绕新办法的方法问题 科学哲学是在推翻 逻辑实证主义在20世纪60年代和70年代。 哲学家 科学家们现在正在密切关注 科学与当前科学实践 使用 案例研究的证据现在可以被视为理所当然， 是科学方法论研究的中心。 有， 然而，对于如何处理历史问题， 即使是科学哲学家也同意 这些证据是重要的，谁拒绝 不可否认性理论（即 “革命性”的科学范式不能有意义地说话 旧范式的拥护者，因为理论术语 他们使用的有根本不同的，“不可分割的”含义） 与一些反实证主义者有关。 斯顿普医生正在检查 三种方法论立场：托马斯·尼克尔的观点，“地方” 历史决定论，”拉里·劳丹对认识论的改造， “规范自然主义”和罗纳德吉尔的“认知科学 科学。“斯特普博士首先明确阐述了这些 立场，特别注意界定 什么是“当地”或具体情况下的方法 规则 他正在探讨的第二个问题是如何测试 历史记录中的一般和规定性规则， 目前的科学实践。 有待检验的深层问题是 是否有任何实质性的方法规则是合法的 普遍的，或者如果所有的都必须保持特定的背景， 历史学家声称。 他正试图解决这个问题 利用科学史和当前的案例研究， 科学实践。

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.