Dana Phillips
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780195137699
- eISBN:
- 9780199787937
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195137699.003.0003
- Subject:
- Literature, World Literature
In the academy, the so-called Science Wars of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s were waged largely by those on the left who were interested in the theories and findings of the several disciplines in which ...
More
In the academy, the so-called Science Wars of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s were waged largely by those on the left who were interested in the theories and findings of the several disciplines in which historical, philosophical, political, and sociological science studies are pursued. These radical critics equated scientific knowledge with power, but made an exception for ecology, which they saw as utopian because they too readily accepted the popular view of ecology as holistic and communitarian, and therefore as radically unlike physics, which has long set the standard for reductive and mechanistic views of nature as well as for objectivity and certainty. Radical critics of science have no faith in the latter, believing instead in the social construction of scientific knowledge, and asserting that the goal of most scientific research and experimentation is the domination of nature. Their confidence in theories of social construction leads them to treat science as just one form of discourse among others, and to dismiss disciplines like sociobiology and genetics as politically suspect. But many of these critics of science — who are variously influenced by Critical Theory, cultural studies, ecofeminism, and so-called social ecology — seem blithely to accept sociological determinism (which would appear to be just as onerous as any other form of determinism) and seem to misunderstand scientific realism, which is a realism not about theories or “discourses” but about entities which cannot be understood as mere effects of meaning or artifacts of signification.Less
In the academy, the so-called Science Wars of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s were waged largely by those on the left who were interested in the theories and findings of the several disciplines in which historical, philosophical, political, and sociological science studies are pursued. These radical critics equated scientific knowledge with power, but made an exception for ecology, which they saw as utopian because they too readily accepted the popular view of ecology as holistic and communitarian, and therefore as radically unlike physics, which has long set the standard for reductive and mechanistic views of nature as well as for objectivity and certainty. Radical critics of science have no faith in the latter, believing instead in the social construction of scientific knowledge, and asserting that the goal of most scientific research and experimentation is the domination of nature. Their confidence in theories of social construction leads them to treat science as just one form of discourse among others, and to dismiss disciplines like sociobiology and genetics as politically suspect. But many of these critics of science — who are variously influenced by Critical Theory, cultural studies, ecofeminism, and so-called social ecology — seem blithely to accept sociological determinism (which would appear to be just as onerous as any other form of determinism) and seem to misunderstand scientific realism, which is a realism not about theories or “discourses” but about entities which cannot be understood as mere effects of meaning or artifacts of signification.
Ilkka Niiniluoto
- Published in print:
- 2002
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199251612
- eISBN:
- 9780191598098
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199251614.003.0010
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
Besides systematic philosophical arguments, there are various extra‐scientific reasons that have been presented for or against realism. This discussion about the relations of knowledge and happiness ...
More
Besides systematic philosophical arguments, there are various extra‐scientific reasons that have been presented for or against realism. This discussion about the relations of knowledge and happiness (good human life) started already among the ancient philosophers (Aristotle, sceptics), and has continued ever since. Such religious, moral, and political considerations do not directly speak in favour or against the truth of scientific realism, but they raise important issues about science policy that have recently been topical in the so‐called Science Wars. Against Rorty's postmodern pragmatism and Feyerabend's epistemological anarchism, it is argued that critical scientific realism, with its commitment to the ethos of science as described by Merton's ethical norms, is in many ways a desirable philosophical outlook in a free, democratic, liberal society.Less
Besides systematic philosophical arguments, there are various extra‐scientific reasons that have been presented for or against realism. This discussion about the relations of knowledge and happiness (good human life) started already among the ancient philosophers (Aristotle, sceptics), and has continued ever since. Such religious, moral, and political considerations do not directly speak in favour or against the truth of scientific realism, but they raise important issues about science policy that have recently been topical in the so‐called Science Wars. Against Rorty's postmodern pragmatism and Feyerabend's epistemological anarchism, it is argued that critical scientific realism, with its commitment to the ethos of science as described by Merton's ethical norms, is in many ways a desirable philosophical outlook in a free, democratic, liberal society.
David S. Caudill
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- May 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780748697908
- eISBN:
- 9781474416061
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Edinburgh University Press
- DOI:
- 10.3366/edinburgh/9780748697908.003.0011
- Subject:
- Law, Philosophy of Law
Issuing a bold and, in light of current preoccupations with AIME, untimely call for the continued relevance of Laboratory Life, David Caudill’s chapter realigns the question of Latour’s value for ...
More
Issuing a bold and, in light of current preoccupations with AIME, untimely call for the continued relevance of Laboratory Life, David Caudill’s chapter realigns the question of Latour’s value for legal theory. Rather than mapping the unstable, unpredictable movements of the legal trajectory – a term that, in preceding chapters, has taken on several perhaps inconsistent layers of meaning – Caudill proposes to reconsider the relationship between law and the sciences (and revisits some of the drama of the Science Wars) under the auspices of the economics of science, a flourishing sub-field of science studies veritably inaugurated by Laboratory Life’s influential discussion of cycles of credit and credibility. Deftly untangling the law-sciences-economics knot, Caudill stages the matter of Philip Mirowski v. Bruno Latour (and Michel Callon), in which the defendants were accused of complicity with neoliberalism and charged, by proxy, with the allegedly pernicious effects of the increasing commercialisation of research on the scientific establishment. Mirowski’s critique runs out of steam, Caudill shows, and runs off the rails as soon as the details of law’s appropriation of scientific research and evidence are examined. But the often dismaying implications of Science Wars-era disputes – now being recapitulated or replayed in miniature, in the economics wing of the science studies field and in legal studies – continue to haunt contemporary law as well as science policy, because it remains unclear to what extent judges and regulators (and legal academics) appreciate the material contributions of works like Laboratory Life to the improvement of our understanding of the sciences, and to what extent the co-production thesis developed by Latour, Callon and others still registers as a fanciful exercise in debunking.Less
Issuing a bold and, in light of current preoccupations with AIME, untimely call for the continued relevance of Laboratory Life, David Caudill’s chapter realigns the question of Latour’s value for legal theory. Rather than mapping the unstable, unpredictable movements of the legal trajectory – a term that, in preceding chapters, has taken on several perhaps inconsistent layers of meaning – Caudill proposes to reconsider the relationship between law and the sciences (and revisits some of the drama of the Science Wars) under the auspices of the economics of science, a flourishing sub-field of science studies veritably inaugurated by Laboratory Life’s influential discussion of cycles of credit and credibility. Deftly untangling the law-sciences-economics knot, Caudill stages the matter of Philip Mirowski v. Bruno Latour (and Michel Callon), in which the defendants were accused of complicity with neoliberalism and charged, by proxy, with the allegedly pernicious effects of the increasing commercialisation of research on the scientific establishment. Mirowski’s critique runs out of steam, Caudill shows, and runs off the rails as soon as the details of law’s appropriation of scientific research and evidence are examined. But the often dismaying implications of Science Wars-era disputes – now being recapitulated or replayed in miniature, in the economics wing of the science studies field and in legal studies – continue to haunt contemporary law as well as science policy, because it remains unclear to what extent judges and regulators (and legal academics) appreciate the material contributions of works like Laboratory Life to the improvement of our understanding of the sciences, and to what extent the co-production thesis developed by Latour, Callon and others still registers as a fanciful exercise in debunking.
Simone Tosoni and Trevor Pinch
- Published in print:
- 2016
- Published Online:
- September 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780262035279
- eISBN:
- 9780262336550
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262035279.001.0001
- Subject:
- Society and Culture, Technology and Society
Based on several rounds of academic interview and conversations with Trevor Pinch, the book introduces the reader to the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS), and in particular to the social ...
More
Based on several rounds of academic interview and conversations with Trevor Pinch, the book introduces the reader to the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS), and in particular to the social constructionist approach to science, technology and sound. Through the lenses of Pinch’s lifetime work, STS students, and scholars in fields dealing with technological mediation, are provided with an in-depth overview, and with suggestions for further reading, on the most relevant past and ongoing debates in the field. The book starts presenting the approach launched by the Bath School in the early sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK), and follows the development of the field up to the so called “Science wars” of the ‘90s, and to the popularization of the main acquisitions of the field by Trevor Pinch and Harry Collins’ Golem trilogy. Then, it deals with the sociology of technology, and presents the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) approach, launched by Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker in 1984 and developed in more than 30 years of research, comparing it with alternative approaches like Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network theory. Five issues are addressed in depth: relevant social groups in the social construction of technology; the intertwining of social representations and practices; the importance of tacit knowledge in SCOT’s approach to the nonrepresentational; the controversy over nonhuman agency; and the political implications of SCOT. Finally, it presents the main current debates in STS, in particular in the study of materiality and ontology, and presents Pinch’s more recent work in sound studies.Less
Based on several rounds of academic interview and conversations with Trevor Pinch, the book introduces the reader to the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS), and in particular to the social constructionist approach to science, technology and sound. Through the lenses of Pinch’s lifetime work, STS students, and scholars in fields dealing with technological mediation, are provided with an in-depth overview, and with suggestions for further reading, on the most relevant past and ongoing debates in the field. The book starts presenting the approach launched by the Bath School in the early sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK), and follows the development of the field up to the so called “Science wars” of the ‘90s, and to the popularization of the main acquisitions of the field by Trevor Pinch and Harry Collins’ Golem trilogy. Then, it deals with the sociology of technology, and presents the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) approach, launched by Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker in 1984 and developed in more than 30 years of research, comparing it with alternative approaches like Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network theory. Five issues are addressed in depth: relevant social groups in the social construction of technology; the intertwining of social representations and practices; the importance of tacit knowledge in SCOT’s approach to the nonrepresentational; the controversy over nonhuman agency; and the political implications of SCOT. Finally, it presents the main current debates in STS, in particular in the study of materiality and ontology, and presents Pinch’s more recent work in sound studies.
John Dupré
- Published in print:
- 2001
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199248063
- eISBN:
- 9780191597367
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199248060.003.0005
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
Rejects the attempt of evolutionary psychology to deny or minimize the importance of human cultural diversity, and argues for the importance of such diversity. This involves an attempt to understand ...
More
Rejects the attempt of evolutionary psychology to deny or minimize the importance of human cultural diversity, and argues for the importance of such diversity. This involves an attempt to understand the causal power of culture and the processes of cultural evolution. Compares human cultural diversity with the diversity found among non‐human species. Finally argues that, despite obvious dangers, cultural diversity should, like biological diversity, be valued. Concludes with some reflections on the so‐called Science Wars.Less
Rejects the attempt of evolutionary psychology to deny or minimize the importance of human cultural diversity, and argues for the importance of such diversity. This involves an attempt to understand the causal power of culture and the processes of cultural evolution. Compares human cultural diversity with the diversity found among non‐human species. Finally argues that, despite obvious dangers, cultural diversity should, like biological diversity, be valued. Concludes with some reflections on the so‐called Science Wars.
Jay A. Labinger and Harry Collins (eds)
- Published in print:
- 2001
- Published Online:
- March 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780226467221
- eISBN:
- 9780226467245
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226467245.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
So far the “science wars” have generated far more heat than light. Combatants from one or the other of what C. P. Snow famously called “the two cultures” (science versus the arts and humanities) have ...
More
So far the “science wars” have generated far more heat than light. Combatants from one or the other of what C. P. Snow famously called “the two cultures” (science versus the arts and humanities) have launched bitter attacks but have seldom engaged in constructive dialogue about the central issues. This book has gathered together some of the world's foremost scientists and sociologists of science to exchange opinions and ideas rather than insults. The contributors find surprising areas of broad agreement in a genuine conversation about science, its legitimacy and authority as a means of understanding the world, and whether science studies undermines the practice and findings of science and scientists. The book is organized into three parts. The first consists of position papers written by scientists and sociologists of science, which were distributed to all the participants. The second presents commentaries on these papers, drawing out and discussing their central themes and arguments. In the third section, participants respond to these critiques, offering defenses, clarifications, and modifications of their positions. Who can legitimately speak about science? What is the proper role of scientific knowledge? How should scientists interact with the rest of society in decision making? Because science occupies such a central position in the world today, such questions are vitally important. Although there are no simple solutions, this book shows the reader exactly what is at stake in the Science Wars, and provides a valuable framework for how to go about seeking the answers we so urgently need.Less
So far the “science wars” have generated far more heat than light. Combatants from one or the other of what C. P. Snow famously called “the two cultures” (science versus the arts and humanities) have launched bitter attacks but have seldom engaged in constructive dialogue about the central issues. This book has gathered together some of the world's foremost scientists and sociologists of science to exchange opinions and ideas rather than insults. The contributors find surprising areas of broad agreement in a genuine conversation about science, its legitimacy and authority as a means of understanding the world, and whether science studies undermines the practice and findings of science and scientists. The book is organized into three parts. The first consists of position papers written by scientists and sociologists of science, which were distributed to all the participants. The second presents commentaries on these papers, drawing out and discussing their central themes and arguments. In the third section, participants respond to these critiques, offering defenses, clarifications, and modifications of their positions. Who can legitimately speak about science? What is the proper role of scientific knowledge? How should scientists interact with the rest of society in decision making? Because science occupies such a central position in the world today, such questions are vitally important. Although there are no simple solutions, this book shows the reader exactly what is at stake in the Science Wars, and provides a valuable framework for how to go about seeking the answers we so urgently need.
Peter Zachar
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- September 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780262027045
- eISBN:
- 9780262322270
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027045.003.0001
- Subject:
- Psychology, Clinical Psychology
In this introduction, Peter Zachar explores the importance of establishing the reality of psychiatric disorders, noting that debates about the reality and unreality of psychiatric disorders are ...
More
In this introduction, Peter Zachar explores the importance of establishing the reality of psychiatric disorders, noting that debates about the reality and unreality of psychiatric disorders are related to the problem of scientific realism. The passions that accompany discussions of realism are exemplified by the Science Wars of the 1990s. One outcome of the Sciences Wars was a less blunt use of metaphysical concepts such as “real” on the part of those participants who were both scientifically and philosophically inclined. It is argued that debates about the reality of psychiatric disorders are at least as passionate, and likely more relevant to people's everyday lives. In this book, metaphysical concepts such as real, true, and objective will be viewed in pragmatist fashion as conceptual tools that have an important role to play in psychiatry, but in adherence to empiricist minimalism, not treated as transcendent, absolute concepts.Less
In this introduction, Peter Zachar explores the importance of establishing the reality of psychiatric disorders, noting that debates about the reality and unreality of psychiatric disorders are related to the problem of scientific realism. The passions that accompany discussions of realism are exemplified by the Science Wars of the 1990s. One outcome of the Sciences Wars was a less blunt use of metaphysical concepts such as “real” on the part of those participants who were both scientifically and philosophically inclined. It is argued that debates about the reality of psychiatric disorders are at least as passionate, and likely more relevant to people's everyday lives. In this book, metaphysical concepts such as real, true, and objective will be viewed in pragmatist fashion as conceptual tools that have an important role to play in psychiatry, but in adherence to empiricist minimalism, not treated as transcendent, absolute concepts.
Simone Tosoni and Trevor Pinch
- Published in print:
- 2016
- Published Online:
- September 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780262035279
- eISBN:
- 9780262336550
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262035279.003.0002
- Subject:
- Society and Culture, Technology and Society
The chapter addresses the popularization of the main acquisitions of social constructionist sociology in the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS), done by Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch in ...
More
The chapter addresses the popularization of the main acquisitions of social constructionist sociology in the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS), done by Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch in the volumes of their Golem trilogy, dedicated respectively to science, technology and medicine. The polemical target of the trilogy, the "flip-flop" understanding of science, technology and medicine, that induces the public to oscillate from an unconditioned trust in scientist, engineers and medics as god-like figures, to a complete skepticism and distrust and vice versa. The chapter also addressed the reasons behind the harsh confrontations between constructionist sociologists of science and scientists occurred in the '90s, known as "Science Wars", and some events connected to the confrontations, like the famous hoax by Alan Sokal.Less
The chapter addresses the popularization of the main acquisitions of social constructionist sociology in the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS), done by Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch in the volumes of their Golem trilogy, dedicated respectively to science, technology and medicine. The polemical target of the trilogy, the "flip-flop" understanding of science, technology and medicine, that induces the public to oscillate from an unconditioned trust in scientist, engineers and medics as god-like figures, to a complete skepticism and distrust and vice versa. The chapter also addressed the reasons behind the harsh confrontations between constructionist sociologists of science and scientists occurred in the '90s, known as "Science Wars", and some events connected to the confrontations, like the famous hoax by Alan Sokal.
