Toward a Monistic Theory of Science: The ‘Strong Programme’ Reconsidered.

A study was conducted to assess the validity of the “Strong Programme” account of scientific knowledge, which assumes that the logics of interest and of instrumental adequacy are not dualistic and potentially conflicting but are one and the same. The findings, although conceding that the Strong Pro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Philosophy of the Social Sciences Vol. 33; no. 3; pp. 311 - 339
Autor principal: Kemp, Stephen
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Sage Publications Inc. 2003
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=513165685&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 513165685
    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: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: 2003
      vid: 33
      iid: 3
      pid: 344
      pub: Sage Publications Inc.
    artinfo:
      ui:
        513165685
        10.1177/0048393103252780
      ppf: 311
      ppct: 28
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Toward a Monistic Theory of Science: The ‘Strong Programme’ Reconsidered.
      aug:
        au: Kemp, Stephen
      su:
        Monism
        Sociology of knowledge
        Scientific knowledge
        Classification
      sug:
        subj:
          Monism
          Sociology of knowledge
          Scientific knowledge
          Classification
      ab: A study was conducted to assess the validity of the “Strong Programme” account of scientific knowledge, which assumes that the logics of interest and of instrumental adequacy are not dualistic and potentially conflicting but are one and the same. The findings, although conceding that the Strong Programme approach is flawed, differ from the more standard criticisms by suggesting that its monistic approach be refined, rather than replaced with an alternative dualistic framework.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N