How to Characterise Pure and Applied Science

References

• Arrow, K. J. 1962. “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention.” In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, edited by R. R. Nelson, 609–626. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bartels, A. 2006. “Defending the Structural Concept of Representation.” Theoria 55: 7–19.
   Google Scholar
• Bod, R. 2006. “Towards a General Model of Applying Science.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20: 5–25. doi: 10.1080/02698590600640950
   Google Scholar
• Boon, M. 2006. “How Science Is Applied in Technology.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20: 27–47. doi: 10.1080/02698590600640992
   Google Scholar
• Bud, R. 2012. “‘Applied Science’: A Phrase in Search of a Meaning.” Isis 103: 537–545. doi: 10.1086/667977
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bud, R. 2014. “‘Applied Science’ in Nineteenth-century Britain: Public Discourse and the Creation of Meaning, 1817–1876.” History and Technology 30: 3–36. doi: 10.1080/07341512.2014.921416
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunge, M. 1966. “Technology as Applied Science.” Technology and Culture 7: 329–347. doi: 10.2307/3101932
   Google Scholar
• Bush, V. 1945. Science: The Endless Frontier. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Calvert, J. 2004. “The Idea of ‘Basic Research’ in Language and Practice.” Minerva 42: 251–268. doi: 10.1023/B:MINE.0000038307.58765.b4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cartwright, N. 1976. “How Do We Apply Science?” In PSA 1974: Proceedings of the 1974 Biennial Meeting, Philosophy of Science Association, edited by R. S. Cohen, C. A. Hooker, A. C. Michalos, and J. W. Van Evra, 713–719. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Cartwright, N. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Casimir, H. B. G. [1983] 2010. Haphazard Reality: Half a Century of Science. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chakravartty, A. 2010. “Informational Versus Functional Theories of Scientific Representation.” Synthese 172: 197–213. doi: 10.1007/s11229-009-9502-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, S. 2010. “Pure Science with a Practical Aim: The Meanings of Fundamental Research in Britain, Circa 1916–1950.” Isis 101: 285–311. doi: 10.1086/653094
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleridge, S. T. 1818. A Treatise on Method. London: B. Fellowes.
   Google Scholar
• Contessa, G. 2007. “Scientific Representation, Interpretation, and Surrogative Reasoning.” Philosophy of Science 74: 48–68. doi: 10.1086/519478
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross, N. 1993. “A History of Design Methodology.” Design Methodology and Relationships with Science 71: 15–27. doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-8220-9_2
   Google Scholar
• David, P. A., D. Mowery, and W. E. Steinmueller. 1992. “Analysing the Economic Payoffs from Basic Research.” Economics of Innovation and New Technology 2: 73–90. doi: 10.1080/10438599200000006
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, H. 2014. “Pure Science and the Problem of Progress.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 46: 55–63. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2014.02.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duhem, P. [1906] 1991. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Translated by P. P. Wiener. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elgin, C. Z. 2004. “True Enough.” Philosophical Issues 14: 113–131. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-6077.2004.00023.x
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, R., and C. Hooker. 2012. “The Simon–Kroes Model of Technical Artifacts and the Distinction Between Science and Design.” Design Studies 33: 480–495. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2012.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrell, R., and C. Hooker. 2015. “Designing and Sciencing: Response to Galle and Kroes.” Design Studies 37: 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2014.12.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feibleman, J. K. 1961. “Pure Science, Applied Science, Technology, Engineering: An Attempt at Definitions.” Technology and Culture 2: 305–317. doi: 10.2307/3100886
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• French, S. 2003. “A Model-theoretic Account of Representation (Or, I Don't Know Much About Art … but I Know It Involves Isomorphism).” Philosophy of Science 70: 1472–1483. doi: 10.1086/377423
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galle, P. 1999. “Design as Intentional Action: A Conceptual Analysis.” Design Studies 20: 57–81. doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00021-0
   Google Scholar
• Galle, P., and P. Kroes. 2014. “Science and Design: Identical Twins?” Design Studies 35: 201–231. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2013.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gero, J. S. 1990. “Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema for Design.” AI Magazine 11: 26–36. doi: 10.1109/62.63160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gero, J. S., and U. Kannengiesser. 2004. “The Situated Function–Behaviour–Structure Framework.” Design Studies 25: 373–391. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2003.10.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giere, R. N. 1988. Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giere, R. N., and P. Thagard. 1999. “Using Models to Represent Reality.” In Model-based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery, edited by L. Magnani and N. J. Nersessian, 41–57. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Godin, B., and D. Schauz. 2016. “The Changing Identity of Research: A Cultural and Conceptual History.” History of Science 54: 276–306. doi: 10.1177/0073275316656007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatchuel, A. 2001. “Towards Design Theory and Expandable Rationality: The Unfinished Program of Herbert Simon.” Journal of Management and Governance 5: 260–273. doi: 10.1023/A:1014044305704
   Google Scholar
• Hatchuel, A., and B. Weil. 2003. “A New Approach of Innovative Design: An Introduction to CK Theory.” In DS 31: Proceedings of ICED 03, the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, edited by A. Folkeson, K. Gralen, M. Norell, and U. Sellgren, 109–110. Stockholm: The Design Society.
   Google Scholar
• Hatchuel, A., and B. Weil. 2009. “CK Design Theory: An Advanced Formulation.” Research in Engineering Design 19: 181–192. doi: 10.1007/s00163-008-0043-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heidelberger, M. 2006. “Applying Models in Fluid Dynamics.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20: 49–67. doi: 10.1080/02698590600641016
   Google Scholar
• Houkes, W., P. E. Vermaas, K. Dorst, and M. J. de Vries. 2002. “Design and Use as Plans: An Action-theoretical Account.” Design Studies 23: 303–320. doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00040-0
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, R. 1997. “Models and Representation.” Philosophy of Science 64 ( Proceedings): S325–S336. doi: 10.1086/392611
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes, T. P. 1976. “The Science-technology Interaction: The Case of High-voltage Power Transmission Systems.” Technology and Culture 17: 646–662. doi: 10.2307/3103672
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kant, I. 2004. Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, edited by M. Friedman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kitcher, P. 2004. “On the Autonomy of the Sciences.” Philosophy Today 48: 51–57. doi: 10.5840/philtoday200448Supplement6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline, R. 1995. “Construing ‘Technology’ as ‘Applied Science’: Public Rhetoric of Scientists and Engineers in the United States, 1880–1945.” Isis 86: 194–221. doi: 10.1086/357153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohlmeyer, F. W., and F. L. Herum. 1961. “Science and Engineering in Agriculture: A Historical Perspective.” Technology and Culture 2: 368–380. doi: 10.2307/3100892
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroes, P. 2002. “Design Methodology and the Nature of Technical Artefacts.” Design Studies 23: 287–302. doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00039-4
   Google Scholar
• Kroes, P. 2009. “Foundational Issues of Engineering Design.” In Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, edited by A. Meijers, 513–541. Amsterdam: North Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Kroes, P., and M. Bakker, eds. 2013. Technological Development and Science in the Industrial Age: New Perspectives on the Science–Technology Relationship. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 1999. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 2013. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Le Masson, P., K. Dorst, and E. Subrahamanian. 2013. “Design Theory: History, State of the Art and Advancements.” Research in Engineering Design 24: 97–103. doi: 10.1007/s00163-013-0154-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucier, P. 2012. “The Origins of Pure and Applied Science in Gilded Age America.” Isis 103: 527–536. doi: 10.1086/667976
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison, M. 2006. “Applying Science and Applied Science: What’s the Difference?” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20: 81–91. doi: 10.1080/02698590600641057
   Google Scholar
• Morrison, M. 2008. “Models as Representational Structures.” In Nancy Cartwright’s Philosophy of Science, edited by S. Hartmann, C. Hoefer, and L. Bovens, 67–90. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison, M., and M. S. Morgan. 1999. “Models as Mediating Instruments.” In Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science, edited by M. S. Morgan and M. Morrison, 10–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nanay, B. 2017. “Internal History Versus External History.” Philosophy 92: 207–230. doi: 10.1017/S0031819117000067
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, R. R. 1959. “The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research.” Journal of Political Economy 67: 297–306. doi: 10.1086/258177
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, R. R. 2006. “Reflections on ‘The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research’: Looking Back and Looking Forward.” Industrial and Corporate Change 15: 903–917. doi: 10.1093/icc/dtl022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niiniluoto, I. 1993. “The Aim and Structure of Applied Research.” Erkenntnis 38: 1–21. doi: 10.1007/BF01129020
   Google Scholar
• Niiniluoto, I. 2014. “Values in Design Sciences.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 46: 11–15. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.11.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NSF. 2017. Federal R&D Funding, by Budget Function: Fiscal Years 2015–17. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2002. Frascati Manual 2002: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
   Google Scholar
• Partha, D., and P. A. David. 1994. “Toward a New Economics of Science.” Research Policy 23: 487–521. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(94)01002-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavitt, K. 1991. “What Makes Basic Research Economically Useful?” Research Policy 20: 109–119. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(91)90074-Z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pielke, R. 2012. “Basic Research as a Political Symbol.” Minerva 50: 339–361. doi: 10.1007/s11024-012-9207-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polanyi, M. 1962. “The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory.” Minerva 1: 54–73. doi: 10.1007/BF01101453
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popper, K. R. 1959. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rase, H. F. 1961. The Philosophy and Logic of Chemical Engineering. Houston, TX: Gulf Pub.
   Google Scholar
• Roll-Hansen, N. 2017. “A Historical Perspective on the Distinction Between Basic and Applied Science.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 48: 535–551.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ropohl, G. 1997. “Knowledge Types in Technology.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 7: 65–72. doi: 10.1023/A:1008865104461
   Google Scholar
• Rosenberg, N. 1990. “Why Do Firms Do Basic Research (with Their Own Money)?” Research Policy 19: 165–174. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(90)90046-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowland, H. A. 1883. “A Plea for Pure Science.” Science 2: 242–250.
   Google Scholar
• Salter, A. J., and B. R. Martin. 2001. “The Economic Benefits of Publicly Funded Basic Research: A Critical Review.” Research Policy 30: 509–532. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00091-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schauz, D. 2014. “What Is Basic Research? Insights from Historical Semantics.” Minerva 52: 273–328. doi: 10.1007/s11024-014-9255-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shai, O., and Y. Reich. 2004. “Infused Design. I. Theory.” Research in Engineering Design 15: 93–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapin, S. 1992. “Discipline and Bounding: The History and Sociology of Science as Seen Through the Externalism–Internalism Debate.” History of Science 30: 333–369. doi: 10.1177/007327539203000401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. 1968. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sterrett, S. G. 2006. “Models of Machines and Models of Phenomena.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20: 69–80. doi: 10.1080/02698590600641024
   Google Scholar
• Stokes, D. E. 1997. Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Suárez, M. 2004. “An Inferential Conception of Scientific Representation.” Philosophy of Science 71: 767–779. doi: 10.1086/421415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suh, N. P. 1990. The Principles of Design. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Suh, N. P. 2001. Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. 1964. “The Complexity of Scientific Choice: A Stocktaking.” Minerva 2: 343–359. doi: 10.1007/BF01097322
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. 1966. “The Complexity of Scientific Choice II: Culture, Overheads or Tertiary Industry?” Minerva 4: 155–169. doi: 10.1007/BF01584852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyndall, J. 1875. Six Lectures on Light. 2nd ed. London: Longmans, Green.
   Google Scholar
• van Eck, D. 2015. “Dissolving the ‘Problem of the Absent Artifact’: Design Representations as Means for Counterfactual Understanding and Knowledge Generalisation.” Design Studies 39: 1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2015.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Eck, D. 2016. The Philosophy of Science and Engineering Design. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• van Fraassen, B. C. 2008. Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vermaas, P. E. 2014. “Design Theories, Models and Their Testing: On the Scientific Status of Design Research.” In An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design: Philosophy, Approaches and Empirical Explorations, edited by A. Chakrabarti and L. T. M. Blessing, 47–66. London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Williamson, A. W. 1870. A Plea for Pure Science: Being the Inaugural Lecture at the Opening of the Faculty of Science, in University College, London … 1870. London: Taylor and Francis.
   Google Scholar