Biologists, and the journals that publish their papers, tend to dismiss theoretical work. Yet it is through ideas, not the mere generation of data, that the course of science is changed.
Article PDF
References
Lane, L.C. Nature 335, 109 (1988).
Popper, K.R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery 27–135 (Harper & Row, New York, 1968).
Bunge, M. Scientific Research, I. The Search for System 222–304 (Springer, New York, 1967).
Lakatos, I. in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (eds Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A.) 91–196 (Cambridge University Press, 1970).
Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd edn) 1–210 (University of Chicago Press, 1970).
Ninio, J. Trends biochem. Sci. 6, VII–IX (1981).
Mitchell, P. Nature 191, 144–148 (1961).
Mitchell, P. A. Rev. Biochem. 46, 996–1005 (1977).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Huszagh, V., Infante, J. The hypothetical way of progress. Nature 338, 109 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1038/338109a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/338109a0
This article is cited by
-
Can Medical Research Do Its Job?
Medical Science Educator (2017)
-
Universal Darwinism
Nature (1993)
-
Glynn and the conceptual development of the chemiosmotic theory: A retrospective and prospective view
Bioscience Reports (1991)