Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-05T03:01:46.933Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Philosophy of Science: A Subject with a Great Future

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Janet A. Kourany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Among philosophers of science nearly a century ago the dominant attitude was that (in Rudolph Carnap's words) philosophy of science was “like science itself, neutral with respect to practical aims, whether they are moral aims for the individual, or political aims for a society.” The dominant attitude today is not much different: our aim is still to articulate scientific rationality, and our understanding of that rationality still excludes the moral and political. I contrast this with the growing entanglements within the sciences of the ethical and the epistemic, and I suggest ways in which philosophers of science can usefully respond.

Type
Toward a More Political Philosophy of Science
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 75 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers. Edited by Cristina Bicchieri and Jason Alexander , December 2008 , pp. 767 - 778
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Chemical Society (1994), “The Chemist's Code of Conduct”, http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/acsdisplay.html?DOC=membership%5Cconduct.html.Google Scholar
American Physical Society (2002), “Guidelines for Professional Conduct”, http://www.aps.org/statements/02_2.cfm.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association (2002), “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct”, http://www.apa.org/ethics.Google Scholar
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (1998), “Code of Ethics”, http://www.asbmb.org/asbmb/site.nsf/Sub/CodeofEthics?opendocument.Google Scholar
Bell, Robert (1992), Impure Science: Fraud, Compromise, and Political Influence in Scientific Research. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Broad, William, and Wade, Nicholas (1982), Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf (1963), “Intellectual Autobiography”, in Schilpp, Paul Arthur (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1–84.Google Scholar
Faucett, Eric (1993), “The Toronto Resolution,” Accountability in Research 3:69–72 (accessed as “Ethics in Science and Scholarship: The Toronto Resolution,” http://www.math.yorku.ca/sfp/sfp2.html).Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul (1970), “Philosophy of Science: A Subject with a Great Past”, in Stuewer, Roger H. (ed.), Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 5. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 172–183.Google Scholar
Franzen, Martina, Rödder, Simone, and Weingart, Peter (2007), “Fraud: Causes and Culprits as Perceived by Science and the Media; Institutional Changes, Rather than Individual Motivations, Encourage Misconduct”, Fraud: Causes and Culprits as Perceived by Science and the Media; Institutional Changes, Rather than Individual Motivations, Encourage Misconduct 8 (1): 3–7..Google ScholarPubMed
Goodstein, David (1995), “The Fading Myth of the Noble Scientist”, in Pallone, Nathaniel J. and Hennessy, James J. (eds.), Fraud and Fallible Judgment: Varieties of Deception in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 21–33.Google Scholar
Howard, Don (2003), “Two Left Turns Make a Right: On the Curious Political Career of North-American Philosophy of Science at Mid-Century”, in Richardson, Alan and Hardcastle, Gary (eds.), Logical Empiricism in North America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
International Council for Science's Standing Committee on Responsibility and Ethics in Science (1999), “Ethics and the Responsibility of Science: Background Paper, Forum I–Session 11 (Introduction)”, http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/background/ethics.htm.Google Scholar
Judson, Horace Freeland (2004), The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Kevles, Daniel (1998), The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Politics, Science, and Character. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip, and Cartwright, Nancy (1996), “Science and Ethics: Reclaiming Some Neglected Questions”, Science and Ethics: Reclaiming Some Neglected Questions 4 (2): 145–153..Google Scholar
Kourany, Janet A. (2000), “A Successor to the Realism/Antirealism Question”, A Successor to the Realism/Antirealism Question 67 (Proceedings): S87–S101.Google Scholar
LaFollette, Marcel (1992), Stealing into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin, Richard C. (2004), “Dishonesty in Science”, New York Review of Books, November 18, 38–40.Google Scholar
Martinson, Brian, Anderson, Melissa, and Vries, Raymond De (2005), “Scientists Behaving Badly”, Nature, June 9, 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarewitz, Daniel (2006), “Institutional Ecology and Societal Outcomes,” paper presented at the National Science Foundation Workshop on the Social Organization of Science and Science Policy, July 13–14, http://www.cspo.org/ourlibrary/papers/Sarewitz.pdf.Google Scholar
Swazey, Judith P., Anderson, Melissa S., and Louis, Karen Seashore (1993), “Ethical Problems in Academic Research”, Ethical Problems in Academic Research 81 (6): 542–553..Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bas C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wadman, Meredith (2005), “One in Three Scientists Confesses to Having Sinned”, Nature, June 9, 718–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar