PERSPECTIVES OF AND CHALLENGES FOR A SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE: HIGHLIGHTING THE CHALLENGES

Publication Type:

Language:

Author(s): 
Alexander Ruser
Zeppelin University, Germany
Issue number: 
No. 3 (Vol. 45)
Pages: 
54-64
Abstract: 

On November 18-19 2014 domestic and international experts gathered at the Russian Academy of Science in Moscow. The aim was to discuss the changing role of scientific knowledge and the resulting consequences for a social philosophy of science. Science is becoming more important in identifying and framing social challenges and providing ‘suitable and feasible’ solution to decision-makers. Yet, scientific authority is increasingly challenged and contested. This increased social significance of scientific knowledge claims call for an elaborate social philosophy of science. However any attempt to develop a theoretical framework for a social philosophy of science has to face three challenges: (1) an increased challenging of scientific authority, (2) the need for interdisciplinarity to cope with ever more complex problems and (3) to elaborate on a social epistemology and/ or social ontology respectively.

Keywords: 
social philosophy of science, scientific authority, interdisciplinary, epistemology, ontology
References: 

Agassi, Joseph (1975) Science in Flux. Dordrecht, Boston: D.Reidel Publishing

Cook, Russel (2014) ‘Merchants of Smear’ Policy Brief, The Heartland Institute, September, 2014

Feyerabend, Paul (1978) Science in a Free Society. London: New Left Books

Fuller, Steve (2014) ‘Customized Science as a Reflection of Protscience’ Proceedings of International Conference ‘Social Philosophy of Science: Russian Prospects’ Moscow November 18-19 2014

Grand, Ann, Wilkinson, Clare, Bultitude, Karen, Winfield, Alan F.T. (2012) ‘Open Science: A New ‘Trust Technology’? Science Communication 34(5): 679-689

Hamati-Ataya, Inanna (2014) ‘Outline for a Reflexive Epistemology’ Proceedings of  International Conference ‘Social Philosophy of Science: Russian Prospects’ Moscow November 18-19 2014

Kasavin, Ilya (2014) ‘Social Philosophy of Science: Russian Prospects’ Proceedings of  International Conference ‘Social Philosophy of Science: Russian Prospects’ Moscow November 18-19 2014

Knorr-Cetina, Karin (1999) Epistemic Cultures. How the Sciences Make Knowledge.  Cambridge, Mass. London: Harvard University Press

Knuuttila, Tarja (2002) ‚Signing for Reflexivity: Constructionist Rhetorics and Its Reflexive Critique in Science and Technology Studies’. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3). Retrieved from  http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/828/1799

Lakatos, Imre (1968) ‘Criticism and the Methodology of Research Programmes’ Proceedings Of the Aristotelian Society 69, 1968: p. 149ff

Lakatos, Imre (1977) ‘Science and Pseudoscience’ in: Lakatos, Imre, Philosophical Papers, Vol.1 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Rescher, Nicholas (2003) Imagining Irreality. A Study of Unreal Possibilities. Chicago, La Salle: Open Court

Searle, John R. (2006) ‘Social Ontology. Some basic principles’ Anthropological Theory. Vol. 6(1): 12-29

Sisomondo, Sergio (2010) An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. 2nd Edition West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell

Sismondo, Sergio (2014) ‘Ontological Turns, turnoffs and roundabouts’ Proceedings of International Conference ‘Social Philosophy of Science: Russian Prospects’ Moscow November 18-19 2014

Weber Max (1904) ‘The Objectivity of sociological and social political knowledge’

Weber, Max (1946) ‘Science as Vocation’ in Gerth H.H. and Mills Wright C. (eds.) From Max Weber: Essay in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press: pp. 129-156

Weingart, Peter, Stehr, Nico (2000) Practising Interdiciplinarity. Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press

Whitehead, Alfred North (1925/1997) ‘The Origins of Modern Science’ in: Tauber, Alfred I. (ed.) Science and the Quest for Reality. New York: New York University Press

Wolpert, Lewis (1992) The unnatural nature of science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press

DOI: 
10.5840/eps201545375
Full Text: