Dissent and Diversity in Science and Technology Studies: Reply to Fuller, Kasavin and Shipovalova, and Turner.
My argument in I Minority Report: Dissent and Diversity in Science i is that Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend reconciled historicist and normative philosophy of science in ways that suggest a productive path forward for Science and Technology Studies (STS) and history and philosophy of science today...
| Published in: | Philosophy of the Social Sciences Vol. 52; no. 5; pp. 306 - 322 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Sage Publications Inc.
Sep2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=158747830&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 158747830 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00483931 CIA jtl: Philosophy of the Social Sciences issn: 00483931 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Sep2022 vid: 52 iid: 5 pid: 344 pub: Sage Publications Inc. artinfo: ui: 158747830 10.1177/00483931221081068 ppf: 306 ppct: 16 formats: tig: atl: Dissent and Diversity in Science and Technology Studies: Reply to Fuller, Kasavin and Shipovalova, and Turner. aug: au: Lynch, William T affil: Department of History, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA su: Constructivism (Psychology) Scientific method Philosophy of science Scientific knowledge Scientific ability Monism History of science Science journalism sug: subj: Constructivism (Psychology) Scientific method Philosophy of science Scientific knowledge Scientific ability Monism History of science Science journalism ab: My argument in I Minority Report: Dissent and Diversity in Science i is that Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend reconciled historicist and normative philosophy of science in ways that suggest a productive path forward for Science and Technology Studies (STS) and history and philosophy of science today. In that light, Kasavin and Shipovalova also question whether Lakatos is really a helpful guide when his approach seems to focus on the internal dynamic of scientific theories rather than a truly sociological approach. At the core of the difference between the philosophies of Lakatos and Feyerabend and that of Kuhn and his followers in STS is the emphasis on the existence throughout the history of science of multiple research programs rather than a single, hegemonic paradigm. Feyerabend rejected Lakatos' emphasis on research programs because he believed scientists were capable of hybridizing theories using the resources from distinct research programs. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|