Feyerabend's well-ordered science: how an anarchist distributes funds.
To anyone vaguely aware of Feyerabend, the title of this paper would appear as an oxymoron. For Feyerabend, it is often thought, science is an anarchic practice with no discernible structure. Against this trend, I elaborate the groundwork that Feyerabend has provided for the beginnings of an approac...
| Publicado en: | Synthese Vol. 198; no. 1; pp. 419 - 450 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Jan2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=151915709&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 151915709 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00397857 4LI jtl: Synthese issn: 00397857 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Jan2021 vid: 198 iid: 1 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 151915709 10.1007/s11229-018-02026-3 ppf: 419 ppct: 31 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 597KB tig: atl: Feyerabend's well-ordered science: how an anarchist distributes funds. aug: au: Shaw, Jamie affil: Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada The Rotman Institute of Philosophy, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada su: Oxford University Press Resource allocation Anarchists New York (State) sug: subj: New York (State) Oxford University Press Resource allocation Anarchists keyword: Anarchism Economics of theory pursuit Feyerabend Funding distribution Values in science Well-ordered science ab: To anyone vaguely aware of Feyerabend, the title of this paper would appear as an oxymoron. For Feyerabend, it is often thought, science is an anarchic practice with no discernible structure. Against this trend, I elaborate the groundwork that Feyerabend has provided for the beginnings of an approach to organizing scientific research. Specifically, I argue that Feyerabend's pluralism, once suitably modified, provides a plausible account of how to organize science. These modifications come from C.S. Peirce's account of the economics of theory pursuit, which has since been corroborated by empirical findings in the social sciences. I go on to contrast this approach with the conception of a 'well-ordered science' as outlined by Kitcher (Science, truth, and democracy, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001), Cartwright (Philos Sci 73(5):981–990, 2006), which rests on the assumption that we can predict the content of future research. I show how Feyerabend has already given us reasons to think that this model is much more limited than it is usually understood. I conclude by showing how models of resource allocation, specifically those of Kitcher (J Philos 87:5–22, 1990), Strevens (J Philos 100(2):55–79, 2003) and Weisberg and Muldoon (Philos Sci 76(2):225–252, 2009), unwittingly make use of this problematic assumption. I conclude by outlining a proposed model of resource allocation where funding is determined by lottery and briefly examining the extent to which it is compatible with the position defended in this paper. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Synthese is a copyright of Springer, 2021. All Rights Reserved. item: Synthese holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2021 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|