Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T05:30:53.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HPS and the Classic Normative Mission

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Brian S. Baigrie
Brian S. Baigrie*
Affiliation:
The University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This session is about the future of philosophy of science, one of a series of negotiations occasioned by the suggestion that philosophy of science must engage, not only the history of science and/or contemporary scientific practice but also the challenge, raised by social scientists, of seeing science as essentially a cultural and dynamic activity. The session is timely because these negotiations are well underway. Many philosophers of science are already committed to an inter-disciplinary eclecticism that has generated a heterogeneous family of science studies programs and projects, all designed to situate science in its social, historical, and politico-economic contexts, but each with its own sense of what shape inter-disciplinary science studies research will take in the coming years. Philosophers who favor this new disciplinary eclecticism face many problems if they are to successfully forge a hybrid science studies that does not violate their integrity as philosophers.

Type
Part XIII. Discourse, Practice, Context: From HPS to Interdisciplinary Science Studies
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1994 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1994 , 1994 , pp. 420 - 427
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by 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

Barnes, B. (1977), Interests and the Growth of Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bloor, D. (1976), Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Buchwald, J. Z. (1994), The Creation of Scientific Effects: Heinrich Hertz and Electric Waves. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226078915.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. (1970), The Order of Things: An Archeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1983), Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511814563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. (1995), Rewriting the Soul: Multiple Personality and the Sciences of Memory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400821686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jardine, N. (1984), The Birth of the History and Philosophy of Science: Kepler's Defence of Tycho Against Ursus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Enlarged 1970.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.S. (1978), Black-Body and Quantum Discontinuity, 1894-1912. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979), Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Enlarged 1989.Google Scholar
Pickering, A. (1984), Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Pickering, A. (ed.). (1992), Science as Culture and Practice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226668208.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S. (1985), Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stump, D. and Galison, P. (eds.) (forthcoming), The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contests, and Power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1949), “‘Objectivity’ in Social Science and Science Policy.” In Shils, E. A. and Finch, H. A. (eds.), The Methodology of the Social Sciences. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar