PRESENTATION: Ways of Doing Science
¨Epistemic Diversity in Scientific Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-559Abstract
This dossier explores the question of whether it is possible that, due to the influence of epistemic or non-epistemic values, there can be more than one type of science. As it will be seen in the articles that make up the dossier, this problem can be approached in very different ways and the answers are multiple. This is a very broad issue that cannot be covered here. Even so, it is important to address this issue, since it underlies many approaches related to scientific knowledge and its applications, and is rarely addressed directly.
Downloads
References
Borinskaya, S. A., Ermolaev, A. I. & Kolchinsky, E. I. (2019). Lysenkoism Against Genetics: The Meeting of the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences of August 1948, Its Background, Causes, and Aftermath. Genetics, 212(1), 1–12. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.118.301413.
Churchman, C. (1948). Statistics, pragmatics, induction. Philosophy of Science, 15, 249–268.
Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Deichmann, U. (2019). La ciencia y la ideología política. Methode, 102, 41-49.
deJong-Lambert, W. (2012). The Cold War Politics of Genetic Research. An Introduction to the Lysenko Affair. Springer.
Elliott, K. (2013). Douglas on values: From indirect roles to multiple goals. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 44, 375-383.
Espinoza, M. (1995). René Thom: de la teoría de las catástrofes a la metafísica, Themata, 14, 321-348.
Fleck, L. (1986). Génesis y desarrollo de un hecho científico. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Glennan, S. (2017). The New Mechanical Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
González García, M. & Pérez Sedeño, E. (2002). Ciencia, tecnología y género. Revista CTS+I, 2.
González García, M. (2022). Los valores como recursos epistémicos en las críticas feministas de la ciencia. SCIO, 22, 235-263.
Gould, S. J. & Lewontin, R. (2015). Las enjutas de San Marcos y el paradigma panglossiano: una crítica del programa adaptacionista. Investigación Ambiental, 7(1), 81-95.
Habermas, J. (1982). Conocimiento e interés. Taurus.
Habermas, J. (1986). Ciencia y técnica como ideología. Madrid: Tecnos.
Hacking, I. (2012). “Language, Truth and Reason” 30 years later. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 43(4), 599–609. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.07.002
Haraway, D. J. (1989). Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science. Routledge.
Holman, B. & Wilholt, T. (2022). The New Demarcation Problem. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 91, 211–220
Joravsky, D. (1986). The Lysenko Affair. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Kevles, D. J. (1985). In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. Alfred Knopf Inc.
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The Essential Tension. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Laudan, L. (1984). Science and Values. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Laudan, L. (2001). El desarrollo y la resolución de las crisis epistemológicas: Estudios de caso en la ciencia y el derecho durante el siglo XVII. Signos Filosóficos, 5, 83-119.
Lewontin, R. & Levins, R. (2015). El biólogo dialéctico. Buenos Aires: CEICS-Ediciones ryr.
Longino, H. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge. Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Longino, H. (1997). Feminismo y filosofía de la ciencia. En M. González, J. A. López Cerezo & J. L. Luján (Eds.), Ciencia, tecnología y sociedad. Lecturas seleccionadas. Barcelona: Ariel.
Longino, H. & Doell, R. (1983). Body, Bias, and Behavior: A Comparative Analysis of Reasoning in Two Areas of Biological Science. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 9(2), 206-227.
López Mas, R. & Luján, J. L. (2023). Comparing Regulatory Options: The Role of Epistemic Policies and Pragmatic Consequences. Science and Public Policy. DOI: doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad077.
Luján, J. L. (1993). Modelos de Cambio Científico: Filosofía de la Ciencia y Sociología del Conocimiento Científico. Revista Internacional de Sociología, 4, 65-90.
Luján, J. L. & Todt, O. (2019). Evidence based methodology: a naturalistic analysis of epistemic policies in regulatory science. European Journal for Philosophy of Science. DOI: 10.1007/s13194-020-00340-7.
Luján, J. L. & Todt, O. (2021). Standards of evidence and causality in regulatory science: Risk and benefit assessment. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2019.05.005
Lysenko, T. (1976). Sobre la situación de la biología. En D. Lecourt (Ed.). Lysenko. Historia de una ciencia proletaria. Buenos Aires: Laia.
Mannheim, K. (1987). Ideologia i utopia. Barcelona: Edicions 62.
McMullin, E. (1988), The Shaping of Scientific Rationality: Construction and Constrait. En E. McMullin, (Ed.), Construction and Constraint. The Shaping of Scientific Rationality. París: University of Notre Dame.
Medvedev, Z. (1971). The Rise and Fall of T.D. Lysenko. Doubleday.
Mosse, G. L. (1968). Intellectual, Cultural and Social Life in the Third Reich. Translation Universal Library.
Pérez Sedeño, E. (2019). Feminist epistemologies and objectivity: moving towards a feminist science. En E. Pérez Sedeño et al. (Eds.), Knowledges, Practices and Activism from Feminist Epistemologies. Wilmington: Vernon Press.
Popper, K.R. (1982). Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography. Open Court.
Popper, K.R. (1983). Conjeturas y refutaciones. Barcelona: Paidós.
Resnik, D. B. & Elliott, K. C. (2019). Value-Entanglement and the Integrity of Scientific Research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 75, 1–11.
Resnik, D. B. & Elliott, K. C. (2023). Science, Values, and the New Demarcation Problem. J Gen Philos Sci, 54, 259–286. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-022-09633-2.
Richardson, S. (2010). Feminist Philosophy of Science: History, Contributions, and Challenges. Synthese, 177, 337-362.
Roll-Hansen, N. (1988). The Progress of Eugenics: Growth of Knowledge and Change in Ideology. History of Science, 26(3), 295-331. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/007327538802600303.
Rudner, R. (1953). The scientist qua scientist makes value judgments. Philosophy of Science, 20, 1-6.
Schiebinger, L. (1999). Has Feminism Changed Science? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Shapere, D. (1984). Reason and the Search for Knowledge. Reidel.
Shrader-Frechette, K. (1994). Ethics of scientific research. Rowman & Littlefield.
Steel, D. (2010). Naturalism and the Enlightenment Ideal: Rethinking a Central Debate in the Philosophy of Social Science. En P. D. Magnus & J. Busch (Eds.), New Waves in Philosophy of Science. Palgrave Macmillan.
Thom, R. (2009). Esbozo de una semiofísica. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Thompson, D W. (1992). On Growth and Form. Dover Publications Inc.
Todt, O. & Luján, J. L. (2017). The Role of Epistemic Policies in Regulatory Science: Scientific Substantiation of Health Claims in the European Union. Journal of Risk Research, 20(4), 551-565.
Wylie, A. (1997). The Engendering of Archaeology: Refiguring Feminist Science Studies. Osiris, 12, 80-99.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 CC Attribution 4.0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
