ЯВЛЯЕТСЯ ЛИ НАУКА ЭПИСТЕМИЧЕСКИ АВТОНОМНОЙ? СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ И ДИСКУССИИ В СОЦИАЛЬНОЙ ФИЛОСОФИИ НАУКИ

  • Петр Сергеевич Куслий
Ключевые слова: наука и общество, социальный конструктивизм, ценности, философия науки, демократизация науки

Аннотация

В данном обзоре современная философия науки представлена как располагающаяся между двумя полюсами: радикальным анархизмом, выраженным направлением социального конструктивизма, сводящего сферу науки к взаимодействию так называемых «ненаучных» ценностей, и ценностным суверенитетом, утверждающим, что эпистемическая ценность научного знания автономна и не подвержена воздействию «ненаучных» факторов. Рассматриваются основные парадигмы в новейших исследованиях в данной области: феминистская критика классического этоса ученого, пределы воздействия социальных факторов на результаты научных исследований, контекстуализм в философии науки. Показано, что сам факт признания роли социального, экономического и других видов контекста на научную деятельность автоматически не приводит к низложению наличия у науки собственной нормативности и эпистемической ценности.

Скачивания

Данные скачивания пока не доступны.

Литература

Berenson, A. Evidence in Vioxx suits shows intervention by Merck officials, New York Times, April 24, 2005.

Biddle, J. “Lessons from the Vioxx Debacle: What the privatization of science can teach us about social epistemology”, Social Epistemology, 2007, vol. 21(1), pp. 21–39.

Brown, J. The Rational and the Social. London: Routledge, 1989. 212 pp.

Brown, M. J. “The source and status of values for socially responsible science”, Philosophical Studies, vol. 2013, vol. 163, no. 1, pp. 67–76.

Elliott, C. “Pharma Goes to the Laundry: Public Relations and the Business of Medical Education”, Hastings Center Report, 2004, vol. 34(5), pp. 18–23.

Giere, R. Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. xxi + 321 pp.

Giere, R. “A New Program for Philosophy of Science?”, Philosophy of Science, 2003, no. 70(1), pp. 15–21.

Giere, R. Scientific Perspectivism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. 160 pp.

Goldman, A. “The Foundations of Social Epistemics”, Synthese, 1987, no. 73(1), pp. 109–144.

Goldman, A. “Psychological, Social and Epistemic Factors in the Theory of Science”, in: R. Burian, M. Forbes, & D. Hull (eds.). PSA 1994: Proceedings of the 1994 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 1995, pp. 277–286.

Haraway, D. “Animal Sociology and a Natural Economy of the Body Politic. Part I: a Political Physiology of Dominance”, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 1978, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 21–36.

Harding, S. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986. 296 pp.

Hesse, M. Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1980. 271 pp.

Hicks, D. J. “A New Direction for Science and Values”, Synthese, 2014, vol. 191, pp. 3271–3295.

Hull, D. Science As a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

Kitcher, P. The Advancement of Science: Science Without Legend, Objectivity Without Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. 432 pp.

Kitcher, P. “Public Knowledge and the Difficulties of Democracy”, Social research, 2006, vol. 73(4), pp. 1205–1224.

Kitcher, P. Science in a Democratic Society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Press, 2011. 270 pp.

Kleinman, D. L., Delborne, J. A., and Anderson, A. A. “Engaging citizens: The High Cost of Citizen Participation in High Technology”, Public Understanding of Science, 2009, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 221–240.

Knorr-Cetina, K. The Manufacture of Knowledge: an Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford, NY: Pergamon, 1981.

Kourany, J. “A Philosophy of Science for the Twenty-First Century”, Philosophy of Science, 2003, vol. 70(1), pp. 1–14.

Kourany, J. A., Fernández Pinto, M. “A Role for Science in Public Policy? The Obstacles, Illustrated by the Case of Breast Cancer Screening Policy”, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 2018, vol. 43(5), pp. 917–943.

Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Univ. Press, 1962. 212 pp.

Kuhn, T. The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977. 366 pp.

Kukla, R. “‘Author TBD’: Radical Collaboration in Contemporary Biomedical Research”, Philosophy of Science, 2012, vol. 79(5), pp. 845–858.

Lacey, H. Values and Objectivity: The Controversy over Transgenic Crops. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005. 304 pp.

Latour, B. “Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World”, in: Knorr-Cetina, K. & Mulkay, M. (eds.). Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. London and Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983, pp. 141–170.

Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986. 296 pp.

Laudan, L. “The Pseudo-Science of Science?”, in: J. Brown (ed.). Scientific Rationality: The Sociological Turn. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1984, pp. 41–74.

Longino, H. E. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002. 288 pp.

Longino, H. E. “The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge”, in: E. N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition). [https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/>, accessed on 20.09.2018]

Mirowski, P., Van Horn, R. “The Contract Research Organization and the Commercialization of Scientific Research”, Social Studies of Science, 2005, vol. 35(4), pp. 48–503.

Neurath, O., Hahn, H., Carnap, R. “The Scientific Conception of the World: The Vienna Circle”, in: Neurath, O. & Cohen, R. S. (eds.). Empiricism and Sociology. Dordrecht; Boston: Reidel, 1973, pp. 299–318.

Pickering, A. “From Science as Knowledge to Science as Practice”, in: Pickering, A. Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1992, pp. 1–28.

Pickering, A. “Elementary Particles: Discovered or Constructed?”, in: Trower, W. P. & Bellini, G. (eds.). Physics in Collision: High-Energy ee/ep/pp Interactions. Vol. 1. New York: Plenum Press, 1982, pp. 439–448.

Rose, H. “Hand, Brain, and Heart: A Feminist Epistemolgy for the Natural Sciences”, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 1983, vol. 9 (1), pp. 73–90.

Ross, J., Hill, K., Egilman, D. & Krumholz, H. “Guest Authorship and Ghostwriting in Publications Related to Rofecoxib: A Case Study of Industry Documents from Rofecoxib Litigation”, Journal of the American Medical Association, 2008, vol. 299 (15), pp. 1800–1812.

Shapin, S.; Schaffer, S. Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985. 448 pp.

Solomon, M. “Social Empiricism”, Nous, 1994, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 325–343.

Solomon, M. Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001. 175 pp.

Thagard, P. R. Computational Philosophy of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1988. 257 pp.

Thagard, P. R. “Societies of Minds: Science as Distributed Computing”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 1993, vol. 24, pp. 49–67.
Опубликован
2019-03-28