what is experimental history

Experimental History

Share this post.

The rise and fall of peer review

Why the greatest scientific experiment in history failed, and why that's a great thing.

For the last 60 years or so, science has been running an experiment on itself. The experimental design wasn’t great; there was no randomization and no control group. Nobody was in charge, exactly, and nobody was really taking consistent measurements. And yet it was the most massive experiment ever run, and it included every scientist on Earth.

Most of those folks didn’t even realize they were in an experiment. Many of them, including me, weren’t born when the experiment started. If we had noticed what was going on, maybe we would have demanded a basic level of scientific rigor. Maybe nobody objected because the hypothesis seemed so obviously true: science will be better off if we have someone check every paper and reject the ones that don’t pass muster. They called it “peer review.”

This was a massive change. From antiquity to modernity, scientists wrote letters and circulated monographs, and the main barriers stopping them from communicating their findings were the cost of paper, postage, or a printing press, or on rare occasions, the cost of a visit from the Catholic Church. Scientific journals appeared in the 1600s , but they operated more like magazines or newsletters, and their processes of picking articles ranged from “we print whatever we get” to “the editor asks his friend what he thinks” to “the whole society votes.” Sometimes journals couldn’t get enough papers to publish , so editors had to go around begging their friends to submit manuscripts, or fill the space themselves. Scientific publishing remained a hodgepodge for centuries.

(Only one of Einstein’s papers was ever peer-reviewed, by the way, and he was so surprised and upset that he published his paper in a different journal instead.)

That all changed after World War II. Governments poured funding into research, and they convened “peer reviewers” to ensure they weren’t wasting their money on foolish proposals. That funding turned into a deluge of papers, and journals that previously struggled to fill their pages now struggled to pick which articles to print. Reviewing papers before publication, which was “ quite rare ” until the 1960s, became much more common. Then it became universal.

Now pretty much every journal uses outside experts to vet papers, and papers that don’t please reviewers get rejected. You can still write to your friends about your findings, but hiring committees and grant agencies act as if the only science that exists is the stuff published in peer-reviewed journals. This is the grand experiment we’ve been running for six decades.

The results are in. It failed. 

A WHOLE LOTTA MONEY FOR NOTHIN’

Peer review was a huge, expensive intervention. By one estimate, scientists collectively spend 15,000 years reviewing papers every year. It can take months or years for a paper to wind its way through the review system, which is a big chunk of time when people are trying to do things like cure cancer and stop climate change. And universities fork over millions for access to peer-reviewed journals, even though much of the research is taxpayer-funded, and none of that money goes to the authors or the reviewers.

Huge interventions should have huge effects. If you drop $100 million on a school system, for instance, hopefully it will be clear in the end that you made students better off. If you show up a few years later and you’re like, “hey so how did my $100 million help this school system” and everybody’s like “uhh well we’re not sure it actually did anything and also we’re all really mad at you now,” you’d be really upset and embarrassed. Similarly, if peer review improved science, that should be pretty obvious, and we should be pretty upset and embarrassed if it didn’t.

It didn’t. In all sorts of different fields, research productivity has been flat or declining for decades , and peer review doesn’t seem to have changed that trend. New ideas are failing to displace older ones . Many peer-reviewed findings don’t replicate , and most of them may be straight-up false . When you ask scientists to rate 20th century discoveries in physics, medicine, and chemistry that won Nobel Prizes, they say the ones that came out before peer review are just as good or even better than the ones that came out afterward. In fact, you can’t even ask them to rate the Nobel Prize-winning discoveries from the 1990s and 2000s because there aren’t enough of them.

Of course, a lot of other stuff has changed since World War II. We did a terrible job running this experiment, so it’s all confounded. All we can say from these big trends is that we have no idea whether peer review helped, it might have hurt, it cost a ton, and the current state of the scientific literature is pretty abysmal. In this biz, we call this a total flop.

What went wrong?

Here’s a simple question: does peer review actually do the thing it’s supposed to do? Does it catch bad research and prevent it from being published?

It doesn’t. Scientists have run studies where they deliberately add errors to papers, send them out to reviewers, and simply count how many errors the reviewers catch. Reviewers are pretty awful at this. In this study reviewers caught 30% of the major flaws, in this study they caught 25%, and in this study they caught 29%. These were critical issues, like “the paper claims to be a randomized controlled trial but it isn’t” and “when you look at the graphs, it’s pretty clear there’s no effect” and “the authors draw conclusions that are totally unsupported by the data.” Reviewers mostly didn’t notice.

In fact, we’ve got knock-down, real-world data that peer review doesn’t work: fraudulent papers get published all the time. If reviewers were doing their job, we’d hear lots of stories like “Professor Cornelius von Fraud was fired today after trying to submit a fake paper to a scientific journal.” But we never hear stories like that. Instead, pretty much every story about fraud begins with the paper passing review and being published. Only later does some good Samaritan—often someone in the author’s own lab!—notice something weird and decide to investigate. That’s what happened with this this paper about dishonesty that clearly has fake data (ironic), these guys who have published dozens or even hundreds of fraudulent papers, and this debacle:

Why don’t reviewers catch basic errors and blatant fraud? One reason is that they almost never look at the data behind the papers they review, which is exactly where the errors and fraud are most likely to be. In fact, most journals don’t require you to make your data public at all. You’re supposed to provide them “on request,” but most people don’t . That’s how we’ve ended up in sitcom-esque situations like ~20% of genetics papers having totally useless data because Excel autocorrected the names of genes into months and years.

(When one editor started asking authors to add their raw data after they submitted a paper to his journal, half of them declined and retracted their submissions. This suggests, in the editor’s words, “a possibility that the raw data did not exist from the beginning.”)

The invention of peer review may have even encouraged bad research. If you try to publish a paper showing that, say, watching puppy videos makes people donate more to charity, and Reviewer 2 says “I will only be impressed if this works for cat videos as well,” you are under extreme pressure to make a cat video study work. Maybe you fudge the numbers a bit, or toss out a few outliers, or test a bunch of cat videos until you find one that works and then you never mention the ones that didn’t. 🎶 Do a little fraud // get a paper published // get down tonight 🎶

PEER REVIEW, WE HARDLY TOOK YE SERIOUSLY

Here’s another way that we can test whether peer review worked: did it actually earn scientists' trust? 

Scientists often say they take peer review very seriously. But people say lots of things they don’t mean, like “It’s great to e-meet you” and “I’ll never leave you, Adam.” If you look at what scientists actually do, it’s clear they don’t think peer review really matters.

First: if scientists cared a lot about peer review, when their papers got reviewed and rejected, they would listen to the feedback, do more experiments, rewrite the paper, etc. Instead, they usually just submit the same paper to another journal. This was one of the first things I learned as a young psychologist, when my undergrad advisor explained there is a “big stochastic element” in publishing (translation: “it’s random, dude”). If the first journal didn’t work out, we’d try the next one. Publishing is like winning the lottery, she told me, and the way to win is to keep stuffing the box with tickets. When very serious and successful scientists proclaim that your supposed system of scientific fact-checking is no better than chance, that’s pretty dismal.

Second: once a paper gets published, we shred the reviews. A few journals publish reviews; most don't . Nobody cares to find out what the reviewers said or how the authors edited their paper in response, which suggests that nobody thinks the reviews actually mattered in the first place. 

And third: scientists take unreviewed work seriously without thinking twice. We read “preprints” and working papers and blog posts, none of which have been published in peer-reviewed journals. We use data from Pew and Gallup and the government, also unreviewed. We go to conferences where people give talks about unvetted projects, and we do not turn to each other and say, “So interesting! I can’t wait for it to be peer reviewed so I can find out if it’s true.”

Instead, scientists tacitly agree that peer review adds nothing, and they make up their minds about scientific work by looking at the methods and results. Sometimes people say the quiet part loud, like Nobel laureate Sydney Brenner :

I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean. I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system.

CAN WE FIX IT? NO WE CAN'T

I used to think about all the ways we could improve peer review . Reviewers should look at the data! Journals should make sure that papers aren’t fraudulent! 

It’s easy to imagine how things could be better—my friend Ethan and I wrote a whole paper on it—but that doesn’t mean it’s easy to make things better. My complaints about peer review were a bit like looking at the ~35,000 Americans who die in car crashes every year and saying “people shouldn’t crash their cars so much.” Okay, but how? 

Lack of effort isn’t the problem: remember that our current system requires 15,000 years of labor every year, and it still does a really crappy job. Paying peer reviewers doesn’t seem to make them any better. Neither does training them . Maybe we can fix some things on the margins, but remember that right now we’re publishing papers that use capital T’s instead of error bars, so we’ve got a long, long way to go.

What if we made peer review way stricter? That might sound great, but it would make lots of other problems with peer review way worse. 

For example, you used to be able to write a scientific paper with style . Now, in order to please reviewers, you have to write it like a legal contract. Papers used to begin like, “ Help! A mysterious number is persecuting me ,” and now they begin like, “Humans have been said, at various times and places, to exist, and even to have several qualities, or dimensions, or things that are true about them, but of course this needs further study (Smergdorf & Blugensnout, 1978; Stikkiwikket, 2002; von Fraud et al., 2018b)”. 

This blows. And as a result, nobody actually reads these papers. Some of them are like 100 pages long with another 200 pages of supplemental information, and all of it is written like it hates you and wants you to stop reading immediately. Recently, a friend asked me when I last read a paper from beginning to end; I couldn’t remember, and neither could he. “Whenever someone tells me they loved my paper,” he said, “I say thank you, even though I know they didn’t read it.” Stricter peer review would mean even more boring papers, which means even fewer people would read them.

Making peer review harsher would also exacerbate the worst problem of all: just knowing that your ideas won’t count for anything unless peer reviewers like them makes you worse at thinking. It’s like being a teenager again: before you do anything, you ask yourself, “BUT WILL PEOPLE THINK I’M COOL?” When getting and keeping a job depends on producing popular ideas, you can get very good at thought-policing yourself into never entertaining anything weird or unpopular at all. That means we end up with fewer revolutionary ideas, and unless you think everything’s pretty much perfect right now, we need revolutionary ideas real bad.

On the off chance you do figure out a way to improve peer review without also making it worse, you can try convincing the nearly 30,000 scientific journals in existence to apply your magical method to the ~4.7 million articles they publish every year. Good luck!

PEER REVIEW IS WORSE THAN NOTHING; OR, WHY IT AIN’T ENOUGH TO SNIFF THE BEEF

Peer review doesn’t work and there’s probably no way to fix it. But a little bit of vetting is better than none at all, right?

I say: no way. 

Imagine you discover that the Food and Drug Administration’s method of “inspecting” beef is just sending some guy (“Gary”) around to sniff the beef and say whether it smells okay or not, and the beef that passes the sniff test gets a sticker that says “INSPECTED BY THE FDA.” You’d be pretty angry. Yes, Gary may find a few batches of bad beef, but obviously he’s going to miss most of the dangerous meat. This extremely bad system is worse than nothing because it fools people into thinking they’re safe when they’re not.

That’s what our current system of peer review does, and it’s dangerous. That debunked theory about vaccines causing autism comes from a peer-reviewed paper in one of the most prestigious journals in the world, and it stayed there for twelve years before it was retracted. How many kids haven’t gotten their shots because one rotten paper made it through peer review and got stamped with the scientific seal of approval?

If you want to sell a bottle of vitamin C pills in America, you have to include a disclaimer that says none of the claims on the bottle have been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. Maybe journals should stamp a similar statement on every paper: “NOBODY HAS REALLY CHECKED WHETHER THIS PAPER IS TRUE OR NOT. IT MIGHT BE MADE UP, FOR ALL WE KNOW.” That would at least give people the appropriate level of confidence.

SCIENCE MUST BE FREE

Why did peer review seem so reasonable in the first place?

I think we had the wrong model of how science works. We treated science like it’s a weak-link problem where progress depends on the quality of our worst work. If you believe in weak-link science, you think it’s very important to stamp out untrue ideas—ideally, prevent them from being published in the first place. You don’t mind if you whack a few good ideas in the process, because it’s so important to bury the bad stuff.

But science is a strong-link problem: progress depends on the quality of our best work. Better ideas don’t always triumph immediately, but they do triumph eventually, because they’re more useful. You can’t land on the moon using Aristotle’s physics , you can’t turn mud into frogs using spontaneous generation , and you can’t build bombs out of phlogiston . Newton’s laws of physics stuck around; his recipe for the Philosopher’s Stone didn’t. We didn’t need a scientific establishment to smother the wrong ideas. We needed it to let new ideas challenge old ones, and time did the rest.

If you’ve got weak-link worries, I totally get it. If we let people say whatever they want, they will sometimes say untrue things, and that sounds scary. But we don’t actually prevent people from saying untrue things right now; we just pretend to. In fact, right now we occasionally bless untrue things with big stickers that say “INSPECTED BY A FANCY JOURNAL,” and those stickers are very hard to get off. That’s way scarier.

Weak-link thinking makes scientific censorship seem reasonable, but all censorship does is make old ideas harder to defeat. Remember that it used to be obviously true that the Earth is the center of the universe, and if scientific journals had existed in Copernicus’ time, geocentrist reviewers would have rejected his paper and patted themselves on the back for preventing the spread of misinformation. Eugenics used to be hot stuff in science—do you think a bunch of racists would give the green light to a paper showing that Black people are just as smart as white people? Or any paper at all by a Black author? (And if you think that’s ancient history: this dynamic is still playing out today .) We still don’t understand basic truths about the universe , and many ideas we believe today will one day be debunked. Peer review, like every form of censorship, merely slows down truth.

HOORAY WE FAILED

Nobody was in charge of our peer review experiment, which means nobody has the responsibility of saying when it’s over. Seeing no one else, I guess I’ll do it: 

We’re done, everybody! Champagne all around! Great work, and congratulations. We tried peer review and it didn’t work.

Honesty, I’m so relieved. That system sucked! Waiting months just to hear that an editor didn’t think your paper deserved to be reviewed? Reading long walls of text from reviewers who for some reason thought your paper was the source of all evil in the universe? Spending a whole day emailing a journal begging them to let you use the word “years” instead of always abbreviating it to “y” for no reason (this literally happened to me)? We never have to do any of that ever again.

I know we all might be a little disappointed we wasted so much time, but there's no shame in a failed experiment. Yes, we should have taken peer review for a test run before we made it universal. But that’s okay—it seemed like a good idea at the time, and now we know it wasn’t. That’s science! It will always be important for scientists to comment on each other’s ideas, of course. It’s just this particular way of doing it that didn’t work.

What should we do now? Well, last month I published a paper , by which I mean I uploaded a PDF to the internet. I wrote it in normal language so anyone could understand it. I held nothing back—I even admitted that I forgot why I ran one of the studies. I put jokes in it because nobody could tell me not to. I uploaded all the materials, data, and code where everybody could see them. I figured I’d look like a total dummy and nobody would pay any attention, but at least I was having fun and doing what I thought was right.

Then, before I even told anyone about the paper, thousands of people found it, commented on it, and retweeted it. 

Total strangers emailed me thoughtful reviews. Tenured professors sent me ideas. NPR asked for an interview. The paper now has more views than the last peer-reviewed paper I published , which was in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . And I have a hunch far more people read this new paper all the way to the end, because the final few paragraphs got a lot of comments in particular. So I dunno, I guess that seems like a good way of doing it?

I don’t know what the future of science looks like. Maybe we’ll make interactive papers in the metaverse or we’ll download datasets into our heads or whisper our findings to each other on the dance floor of techno-raves. Whatever it is, it’ll be a lot better than what we’ve been doing for the past sixty years. And to get there, all we have to do is what we do best: experiment .

(This post now has a followup here .)

Discussion about this post

I think your key connection here, which I, a military historian, had not made until now, is that peer review came out of those heady days of the early Cold War when THE EXPERTS arrived at the Pentagon. The most famous of these was MacNamara. I leave the Vietnam analogy in your capable hands. From my perspective, this is the moment when scientists were being asked to think unthinkable things and question every set of assumptions until they had exhausted all cognitive powers, for the stakes were so very, very high. We may forgive the motivations and still see the shortcomings here.

I should also note that this all fits with Max Weber's theory that specialist classes make informational gatekeeping processes into safeguards for their own status. Terry Shinn wrote about it studying L'Ecole Polytechnique and I have encountered it in my own study of the French naval engineering school. If you want to add this to the social history of how entire professions can fail together, for decades, there is historiography.

I don't think it failed perhaps as much as it stopped working, especially as the number of scientists exploded. A good idea becomes a bureaucratic nightmare with scale.

Also the weak link point is excellent!

Ready for more?

Experimental Psychology: History, Method and Characteristics

The Experimental psychology Is a stream that studies the psychological phenomena using an experimental methodology based on observation.

It guarantees a scientific practice and involves the observation, manipulation and registration of the variables that affect a subject under study.

Experimental psychologists are interested in studying human behavior by manipulating variables in controllable situations and in unnatural environments that affect and influence behavior.

Gustav Theodor Fechner Was one of the pioneers in the use of the experimental when trying to prove the relation between physical and sensorial magnitudes, in 1860.

However, it was in 1879 when Wilhelm Wundt , Considered one of the founders of this current, created the first laboratory of experimental psychology.

Definition of experimental psychology

This current of psychology defends the experimental method as the most suitable form for the study of human behavior.

Experimental psychology considers that psychological phenomena can be analyzed by experimental methods consisting in the observation, manipulation and recording of dependent, independent and extraneous variables that influence the object of study.

Many psychologists have used this method when carrying out their work to address multiple issues such as memory , Learning, sensation, perception, motivation and development processes, among others.

Professionals who adopt this method want to know the behavior of a subject by manipulating variables in controlled environments. The contexts in which they are carried out are the laboratories and instruments are used that guarantee a control and an exhaustive precision in their investigations.

The experiments can be performed in humans but mostly animals are used, because many times for ethical reasons people can not be used to perform such tests. In addition, animals provide greater availability and control to researchers.

The most scientific part of psychology is unified with experimental psychology, because the use of its methodology guarantees a scientific practice through observation and experimentation, removing the laws of behavior and mental processes.

With its emergence in the nineteenth century, psychology begins to focus and become interested in the study of observable phenomena, thus giving rise to an empirical science, that is, based on observation and experience of events.

Later, experimental psychology would use rigorous methods and instruments to carry out the measurements in its investigations.

Experimental psychology emerges in Germany as a modern discipline with Wundt, who created the first experimental laboratory in 1879 and introduced a mathematical and experimental approach to research.

Earlier in 1860 Gustav Theodor Fechner, a German psychologist, attempted to test and reason the link between physical and sensory magnitudes through experimental data in his work Elements of psychophysics .

Other authors who contributed to this growing science were Charles Bell , A British physiologist who investigated nerves; Ernst Heinrich Weber , A German physician and considered one of its founders and Oswald Külpe , The principal founder of the Würzburg School in Germany, among others.

The appearance of different schools was due to this tendency to the experimentation of the time, whose purpose was to try to observe the degree of relationship between the biological and the psychological.

Among these schools is the Russian who was interested in neurophysiology and was initiated by Pavlov Y Bechterev . Functionalism, which seeks to demonstrate the biological laws that delimit the behavior and behaviorism of Watson .

In the twentieth century behaviorism was the predominant school within psychology in general and especially in the United States. It is the branch of psychology that set aside mental phenomena within experimental psychology.

In Europe, however, this was not the case, since psychology was influenced by such authors as Craik, Hick and Broadbent who focused on subjects such as attention, thought and memory, thus laying the foundations of cognitive psychology.

In the last half of the century, psychologists used multiple methods, not only focused and limited to a strictly experimental approach.

In addition, the experimental method is used in many different fields within psychology such as social psychology and developmental psychology.

Experimental method

Experimental psychology considers that psychological phenomena can be studied through this method, thus constituting one of the bases of psychology as a science.

It involves the observation, manipulation and recording of dependent, independent and extraneous variables that are the object of study, in order to be able to describe and explain them in terms of their relation to human behavior.

This method aims to identify the causes and evaluate the consequences, the researcher tries to find a causality between different variables.

On the one hand, there is the medium variable that would act as an independent variable. The dependent would be that which is related to the behavior of the subject. Finally, all external factors influencing this would be weird variables.

The experiment is carried out in a controlled environment such as a laboratory, where the experimenter can manipulate variables and control those that can affect the others. In addition, it can thus form specific experimental groups of subjects according to their study interests.

The researcher is the one who creates the necessary conditions to be able to carry out the study and to apply the independent variable when he sees fit. In addition to this method can be repeated conditions to check the results as well as alter them to see the differences of behavior to study between different situations.

In this approach, the experimenter manipulates circumstances to control their increase or decrease as well as their effect on the observed behaviors, to be able to describe why that situation or change occurs.

Many times before carrying out an investigation one resorts to pilot experiments that are tests of the experiment to study some aspects of him. In addition the experiments have another positive part because being carried out in these controlled contexts can be replicated by other researchers in future situations.

Characteristics of experimental research

Some of the characteristics of experimental research are as follows:

• Subjects are randomly arranged into equivalent groups, giving rise to statistical equivalence so that the differences between the results are not due to initial differences between groups of subjects.
• Existence of two or more groups or conditions to be able to carry out the comparison between them. Experiments can not be performed with a single group or condition to be compared.
• Management of an independent variable, in the form of different values ​​or circumstances. This direct manipulation is done to be able to observe the changes that it produces in the dependent variables. In addition, the assignment of values ​​and conditions must be done by the researcher, because if this were not so, it would not be considered a real experiment.
• Measure each dependent variable by assigning numerical values ​​so that the result can be evaluated and thus speak of an experimental investigation.
• Have a design with which you can control to a greater extent the influence of the foreign variables and to avoid that the results are affected by them.
• Use inferential statistics to make generalizations of research to the population.

Phases of an experiment

1- approaching a knowledge problem.

Choosing the problem to be investigated depends on the experimenter and what you want to study, the research questions have to be able to be solved through an experimental process.

Depending on the problem, the methodological approach to be followed will be delimited.

2- Hypothesis Formulation

The hypotheses are statements that are formulated and that anticipate the results that could be obtained from the research, relate at least two variables and must be described in empirical terms, being able to be observed and measurable.

3- Making an appropriate design

With the design, the procedure or work plan of the researcher is plotted, indicating what is going to be done and how the study will be carried out, from the variables involved to the assignment of the subjects to the groups.

4- Collection and analysis of data

For the collection of data there are multiple instruments that are valid and reliable, and techniques that will be better or worse adapted and that will present advantages and disadvantages.

The analysis of the data is carried out by organizing the information so that it can be described, analyzed and explained.

5- Conclusions

In the conclusions, it is developed the fulfillment or not of the hypotheses raised, the limitations of the research work, the methodology that has been followed, implications for the practice, generalization at the population level, as well as future lines of research.

Objective and conditions of the experimental method

Its objective is to investigate the causal relationships between variables, that is, to analyze the changes that occurred in the dependent variable (behavior) as a consequence of the different values ​​presented by the independent variable (external factor).

The conditions to be able to conclude that there is a relationship between variables are:

• Temporal contingency between variables. The variable cause that would be the independent, has to precede the variable consequence, that would be the dependent one.
• Covariation between variables. In order for there to be a relationship between the two, a change in the values ​​of one would imply a proportional change in the values ​​of the second.
• The correlation between variables should not be attributable to the effect of foreign variables.

In short, the researcher must manipulate the independent variable, establish a temporal order among variables and have to eliminate the effect that is exerted as a consequence of extraneous variables.

• Experimental psychology. Recovered from ecured.cu.
• Experimental psychology. Retrieved from wikipedia.org.
• Definition of experimental psychology. Recovered from definicion.de.
• Definition, characteristics and objective of the experimental method. Retrieved from psikipedia.com.

Recent Posts

Adam Mastroianni  

Experimental Philosophy: An Introduction

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 16 March 2022
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Kirsten Walsh 3  

43 Accesses

Experimentalism ; Experimental learning ; New philosophy

Related Topics

Experimental-Speculative Distinction, Experimental Philosophy in Spain, (Baconian) Natural and Experimental History, experientia literata , experimentum crucis , Travel Writing

The mid-seventeenth century witnessed a significant rise in the use of experiments as a means of finding out about the natural world. While experimentation itself was not new, it was ascribed a new foundational importance for natural philosophy. The rise in experimentalism, therefore, can be characterized by two related trends. First, we see an increase in the number and quality of experiments, as well as advancements in instrument-making and experimental and data management techniques. Second, we see a shift toward philosophical and methodological views that placed experimentation at the center of natural philosophy. In Britain, advocates of this new natural philosophy based on observation and experiment called themselves...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Achinstein P (1998) Explanation v. Prediction: which carries more weight? In: Curd M, Cover JA (eds) Philosophy of science: the central issues. W. W. Norton & Company, New York

Google Scholar  

Anstey PR (2004) The methodological origins of Newton's queries. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part A 35:247–269

Article   Google Scholar  

Anstey PR (2005) Experimental versus speculative natural philosophy. In: Anstey P, Schuster JA (eds) The science of nature in the seventeenth century. Springer, Netherlands

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Anstey PR (2013) Experimental philosophy in France. Early modern experimental philosophy [Online]. Available from: https://blogs.otago.ac.nz/emxphi/2013/06/experimental-philosophy-in-france/ 24 June 2013].

Anstey PR (2014) Philosophy of experiment in early modern England: the case of Bacon, Boyle and Hooke. Early Sci Med 19:103–132

Bacon F (2004) In: Rees G, Wakely M (eds) The Oxford Francis Bacon, volume 11. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Bogen J (2013) Theory and observation in science. In: Zalta, E. N. (ed.) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition) .

Boyle R (1666) General heads for a natural history of a countrey, great or small, imparted likewise by Mr. Boyle. Philos Trans 1:186–189

Boyle R (1772) Works of the honourable Robert Boyle, 2, 6 vols. In: Birch, T. (ed.). London: Printed for J. and F. Rivington, etc.

Boyle R (1991/1674) About the excellency and grounds of the mechanical hypothesis. In: Boyle R, Stewart MA (eds) Selected philosophical papers of Robert Boyle. Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis

Chalmers A (2012) Intermediate causes and explanations: The key to understanding the scientific revolution. Stud Hist Philos Sci 43:551–562

Cowley A (1661) A proposition for the advancement of experimental philosophy. Early English Books Online [Online]. Available from: http://eebo.chadwyck.com.ezproxy.otago.ac.nz/search/full_rec?SOURCE=pgthumbs.cfg&ACTION=ByID&ID=99883275&FILE=../session/1398052076_21619&SEARCHSCREEN=CITATIONS&SEARCHCONFIG=var_spell.cfg&DISPLAY=AUTHOR 21 April 2014].

Dear P (1995) Discipline & experience: the mathematical way in the scientific revolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Book   Google Scholar  

Garber D, Roux S (2013) Introduction. In: Garber D, Roux S (eds) The mechanization of natural philosophy. Springer

Gaukroger S (2006) The emergence of a scientific culture: science and the shaping of modernity, 1210–1685. Clarendon Press, Oxford

Hacking I (1998) Experimentation and scientific realism. In: Curd M, Cover JA (eds) Philosophy of science: the central issues. W. W. Norton & Company, New York

Hooke R (1705) A general scheme, or idea of the present state of natural philosophy. In: Smith, S. (ed.) The posthumous works of Robert Hooke, ... Containing His Cutlerian Lectures, and Other Discourses, Read at the Meetings of the Illustrious Royal Society. ... Illustrated with Sculptures. To These Discourses is Prefixt the Author's Life, ... Publish'd by Richard Waller

Hooke R (1966/1665) Micrographia: or, some physiological descriptions of minute bodies made by magnifying glasses, with observations and inquiries thereupon. Dover, New York N.Y.

Hunter M (2007) Robert Boyle and the early Royal Society: a reciprocal exchange in the making of Baconian Science. Br J Hist Sci 40:1–23

Jurin J (1727) The dedication. Philos Trans 34:A2–A3

Kuhn TS (1976) Mathematical vs. experimental traditions in the development of physical science. J Interdiscip Hist 7:1–31

Locke J (1979) In: Nidditch PH (ed) An essay concerning human understanding. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Maxwell G (1998) The ontological status of theoretical entities. In: Curd M, Cover JA (eds) Philosophy of science: the central issues. W. W. Norton & Company, New York

Niaz M (2009) Critical appraisal of physical science as a human enterprise. Springer

Okasha S (2011) Experiment, observation and the confirmation of laws. Analysis 71:222–232

Oldenburg H (1672) A preface to the eighth year. Philos Trans 7:4000–4003

Shapin S, Schaffer S (2011) Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton University Press

Shapiro AE (2004) Newton's 'experimental philosophy'. Early Sci Med 9:185–217

Snyder LJ (1998) Is evidence historical? In: Curd M, Cover JA (eds) Philosophy of science: the central issues. W. W. Norton & Company, New York

Tiles JE (1993) Experiment as intervention. Br J Philos Sci 44:463–475

Van Fraassen B (1980) The scientific image. Oxford University Press, New York

Vanzo A (2016) Experiment and speculation in seventeenth-century Italy: the case of Geminiano Montanari. Stud Hist Phil Sci 56:52–61

Walsh K (2017) Newton: from certainty to probability? Philos Sci 84:866–878

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology, Philosophy and Anthropology, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

Kirsten Walsh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kirsten Walsh .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Faculty of Philosophy, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

Dana Jalobeanu

Département de philosophie, University of Toulouse-Jean Jaurès, Toulouse, France

Charles T. Wolfe

Section Editor information

Sociology, Philosophy & Anthropology, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Walsh, K. (2022). Experimental Philosophy: An Introduction. In: Jalobeanu, D., Wolfe, C.T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Early Modern Philosophy and the Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20791-9_528-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20791-9_528-1

Received : 03 December 2021

Accepted : 03 December 2021

Published : 16 March 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-20791-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-20791-9

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Religion and Philosophy Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research