Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T11:30:19.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Science of Mars or of Venus?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2009

Mary Tiles
Mary Tiles
Affiliation:
Royal Institute of Philosophy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For as long as there has been anything worthy of the name of science, there have been those who have criticized its claim to superior knowledge. With the birth and prodigious growth of modern science, the corresponding growthof critical opinion led, in the eighteenth century, to a divorce of the sciences from the humanities around which our educational institutions, and our universities in particular, have been built. It is this divorce which renders problematic the status of the social or human sciences. For the extent to which Man can be an object of scientific knowledge will be questioned by those insisting on an opposition between human knowledge and values as embodied in the humanities, and the dehumanized objective knowledge proclaimed within the natural sciences.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy , Volume 62 , Issue 241 , July 1987 , pp. 293 - 306
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1987

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

1 Michel, Serres, Hermes: Literature, Science, Philosophy, J.V., Harari and Bell, David F. (eds) (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982), 99.Google Scholar

2 W., Newton-Smith, ‘The Role of Interests in Science’ in Philosophy and Practice, A., Phillips Griffiths (ed.) (Cambridge University Press, 1984), 70.Google Scholar

3 M., Berman, Social Change and Scientific Organizations: The Royal Institution 1799–1844 (London: Heinemann, 1978), xviii.Google Scholar

4 Isaiah, Berlin, ‘The Divorce between the Sciences and the Humanities’ in his Against the Current (Oxford University Press, 1981).Google Scholar

5 Robert Chambers, ‘Professional Thinking and Rural Poverty: Putting the Last First’, paper delivered to the Other Economic Summit 1985, p. 3.

6 Keller, Evelyn Fox, ‘Feminism and Science’,Signs: Journal of Women Culture and Society 7, No. 3 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Ilya, Prigogine and Isabelle, Stengers, Order Out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature (London: Fontana, 1985).Google Scholar

8 Charles, Taylor, ‘Rationality’, in Rationality and Relativism, M., Hollis and S., Lukes (eds) (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1982), 101.Google Scholar

9 Francis, Bacon, ‘Thoughts and Conclusions’ in B., Farrington, The Philosophy of Francis Bacon (University of Chicago Press, 1966), 93.Google Scholar

10 For further discussion of Davy' work and its social and political context see op. cit. note 3, and David, Albury and Joseph, Schwartz, Partial Progress (London: Pluto Press, 1982), Ch. 1.Google Scholar

11 These are more fully discussed in Mary Tiles, ‘Mathesis, and the Masculine, Birth of Time’, in International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. l (London: Koiitledge & Kegan Paul, 1986).Google Scholar

12 E., Schrödinger, ‘Are there Quantum Jumps?’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science III (1952), 109.Google Scholar