FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2024043345> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2024043345 endingPage "104" @default.
• W2024043345 startingPage "87" @default.
• W2024043345 abstract "Peirce and Royce and the Betrayal of Science:Scientific Fraud and Misconduct Jacquelyn Anne K. Kegley I believe that the long-neglected ideas on science and scientific method of Charles Sanders Peirce and Josiah Royce can illuminate some of the current attacks on science that have surfaced: misconduct and fraud in science and anti-scientism or the new cynicism. In addition, Royce and Peirce offer insights relevant to the ferment in contemporary philosophy of science around the various forms of pluralism advocated by a number of philosophers (see Kellert, Longino, and Waters). Pluralism is the view that plurality in science possibly represents an ineliminable character of scientific inquiry and knowledge (about at least some phenomena) . . . and that analysis of metascientific concepts (like theory, explanation, evidence) should reflect the possibility that the explanatory and investigative aims of science can best be achieved by sciences that are pluralistic, even in the long run (Kellert, Logino, and Waters, ix-x). The topic of misconduct and deviance in science has been much discussed in the literature since the mid 1980s (Bechtel and Pearson). The issues are political, economic, social, ethical, and distinctly philosophical. The most fundamental question concerns the nature of science and the consequent query whether the scientific community has lost its way, betraying the foundations of its validity as an intellectual enterprise. As we shall see, this question clearly connects the issue of scientific fraud with discussions of pluralism in contemporary philosophy of science, which also concern epistemic validity. Thus, Horace Freeland Judson, in his book, The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science, asserts that the scrutiny of the nature of fraud and other misconduct will reach to the heartbeat and pulse of what the sciences are and what scientists can do at this, the start of the millennium (Judson 4). In addition to the questioning of science because of scientific fraud, science is under attack in a second way. Susan Haack, in her book, Defending Science—within Reason, discusses extensively [End Page 87] the new anti-scientism, a position she calls the new cynicism, namely, that [s]cience is largely or wholly a matter of interests, social negotiation or myth-making, the production of inscriptions or narratives; not only does it have no peculiar epistemic authority and no uniquely rational method, but it is really, like all purported 'inquiry,' just politics (Haack 21). Science has, at least in Western culture, usually been associated with 'seeking the truth' in a controlled honest way (Ben-Yehuda 1). Science is viewed as the pursuit of certified knowledge (Merton 604-05). Or again, Because science, in particular, is grounded in abstract and systematic theory and rationality, it has been regarded as the prototype for a professional claim to authoritative knowledge (Fox and Braxton 374). In terms of the pluralist debate today and the arguments against the Unity of Sciences movement promoted by the logical empiricists, Alan W. Richardson suggests that the concern among the logical empiricists about the demarcation problem was a concern about proper and improper epistemic authority—a concern about ideological obfuscation in support of authority and power (20). Likewise, Richardson views Rudolph Carnap's promotion of a unity of scientific language as a concern for transparency and intersubjective control, a control that he believed metaphysics and ideology lacked (Richardson 14). Even more revealing for our discussion of Peirce and Royce, Richardson argues that if scientific language worked as Carnap envisioned, it not only connected the sciences internally one to another, but also to the lifeworld and sphere of activity of the ordinary person (Richardson 14). Otto Neurath and Carnap were convinced that the unity of science showed how science and scientific philosophy do, in fact, 'serve life' (Richardson 14). Finally, traditionally in Western culture and philosophy, science is viewed as a norm-driven and self-regulating enterprise. Thus, in 1973, Robert K. Merton described a set of four norms or institutional imperatives: (1) universalism—evaluating claims by pre-established impersonal criteria; (2) communality or common ownership—substantial findings of science are a product of social collaboration, and rewards to individuals are conferred by the community; (3) disinterestedness—research should be guided not by personal motives but by the wish to extend scientific knowledge..." @default.
• W2024043345 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2024043345 creator A5036960721 @default.
• W2024043345 date "2010-01-01" @default.
• W2024043345 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2024043345 title "Peirce and Royce and the Betrayal of Science: Scientific Fraud and Misconduct" @default.
• W2024043345 cites W1504953979 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W1576360908 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W165971531 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W1975288244 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W1986781756 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W1996228934 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W2001601608 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W2003067693 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W2048372578 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W2059790844 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W2085839358 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W2091173106 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W2095354012 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W2095959788 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W2105245653 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W2299907954 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W2315404267 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W2334709571 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W2341408565 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W2403137622 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W2798694686 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W2801559541 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W3083268655 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W3158683096 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W623876894 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W645908557 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W651099568 @default.
• W2024043345 cites W2529622883 @default.
• W2024043345 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/plu.2010.0003" @default.
• W2024043345 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2024043345 type Work @default.
• W2024043345 sameAs 2024043345 @default.
• W2024043345 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2024043345 countsByYear W20240433452013 @default.
• W2024043345 countsByYear W20240433452015 @default.
• W2024043345 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2024043345 hasAuthorship W2024043345A5036960721 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConcept C110099512 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConcept C145038440 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConcept C180182882 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConcept C2780587575 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConcept C2781384979 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConcept C49831778 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConcept C95121780 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConceptScore W2024043345C110099512 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConceptScore W2024043345C111472728 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConceptScore W2024043345C138885662 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConceptScore W2024043345C142724271 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConceptScore W2024043345C144024400 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConceptScore W2024043345C145038440 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConceptScore W2024043345C17744445 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConceptScore W2024043345C180182882 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConceptScore W2024043345C199539241 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConceptScore W2024043345C204787440 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConceptScore W2024043345C2780587575 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConceptScore W2024043345C2781384979 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConceptScore W2024043345C49831778 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConceptScore W2024043345C71924100 @default.
• W2024043345 hasConceptScore W2024043345C95121780 @default.
• W2024043345 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2024043345 hasLocation W20240433451 @default.
• W2024043345 hasOpenAccess W2024043345 @default.
• W2024043345 hasPrimaryLocation W20240433451 @default.
• W2024043345 hasRelatedWork W151121251 @default.
• W2024043345 hasRelatedWork W2016051141 @default.
• W2024043345 hasRelatedWork W2083531729 @default.
• W2024043345 hasRelatedWork W2129501969 @default.
• W2024043345 hasRelatedWork W2901343724 @default.
• W2024043345 hasRelatedWork W2904399351 @default.
• W2024043345 hasRelatedWork W2935945203 @default.
• W2024043345 hasRelatedWork W2951559615 @default.
• W2024043345 hasRelatedWork W3093703149 @default.
• W2024043345 hasRelatedWork W4212948501 @default.
• W2024043345 hasVolume "5" @default.
• W2024043345 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2024043345 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2024043345 magId "2024043345" @default.
• W2024043345 workType "article" @default.