FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2049179621> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2049179621 endingPage "366" @default.
• W2049179621 startingPage "360" @default.
• W2049179621 abstract "Social Science, Scientism, and American Democracy Allan A. Needell (bio) Andrew Jewett. Science, Democracy, and the American University: From the Civil War to the Cold War. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2012. xii + 402 pp. Footnotes and index. $99.00. Mark Solovey. Shaky Foundations: The Politics-Patronage-Social Science Nexus in Cold War America. Studies in Modern Science, Technology, and the Environment. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2013. x + 253 pp. Illustrations, notes, and index. $39.95. The turbulent 1960s and ‘70s witnessed widespread challenges to the practice and social function of science. Historians, then and later, played an active role exposing ways in which—at government-funded think tanks and universities alike—nominally scientific problem-choices and results were often skewed to serve powerful interests over some broader measure of the public good.1 The Vietnam War, especially, challenged deeply ingrained presumptions about objectivity and disinterest as the essence of the scientific enterprise. In the years that followed, some historians of science gradually shifted from exposing earlier contradictions to examining the ramifications of their discoveries, specifically their connections to the so-called rightward and postmodern turns that were drawing so much attention within the political and intellectual history subdisciplines.2 Conflicts and nuances of the previous era were of less immediate concern. Recently a number of historians, including historians of science, have refocused attention on contested aspects of science before the turmoil of the 1960s.3 Although the impression has hardly been reversed that the latter twentieth century witnessed an enormous culturally, economically, and politically consequential disillusionment with important aspects of modern science, it has become increasingly apparent that there is also room for a much better understanding of earlier disparate public and elite views about the research enterprise. What was science thought to be good for? What defined it? And what special status, if any, was to be granted to scientific knowledge-claims? As the focus, organization, and practice of science modernized in nineteenth–century [End Page 360] America, and especially as the U.S. federal government expanded its use of and its support for science, there were multiple, competing answers to such questions. Although for some time those differences may have seemed less important than stark postmodern challenges to the very notion of scientific authority, it may well be that examining earlier differences more closely will provide a better understanding of how we have gotten to where we are, as well as the range of possibilities in front of us. Andrew Jewett and Mark Solovey undertake just such an examination, setting new benchmarks for future study of the history of science, or at least the history of the social sciences, in America. Jewett asserts and then provides copious evidence for just how actively contested presumptions about science were in the United States for at least a century following the Civil War. Mark Solovey describes how, even at the height of the Cold War, the very prevalence of seeming consensus masked some very powerful opposing forces. Both authors use the term “scientism” to describe the claims that the social sciences were value-neutral and that their seemingly rigorous, systematic, and quantitative investigations implied objectivity and disinterestedness in the consideration of human behavior, economics, and political activity (Jewett, pp. 10n, 216–18; Solovey, p. 16). Mimicking the natural sciences (physics most specifically), scientism, in their analysis, highlights an assumed ability among social scientists to construct, based on empirical investigation, accurate predictions of individual, social group, and social system behavior—including the behavior of economic and political systems. At the same time, scientism (as defined) assumes a willingness to relegate the consequential issues of purpose, human values, power, and ethics variously to religion, humanists, politics, or even government officials. As announced in the preface, Science, Democracy, and the American University, the more ambitious of the two books reviewed here, attempts “to explain what several generations of thinkers had in mind when they devoted their lives to the project of making America scientific” (p. vii). Jewett sees as both inaccurate and misleading a prominent tendency among contemporary intellectual historians to view “technocratic, managerial liberalism”—which features value-neutrality and the witting or unwitting furtherance of establishment interests—as a defining characteristic..." @default.
• W2049179621 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2049179621 creator A5024057305 @default.
• W2049179621 date "2014-01-01" @default.
• W2049179621 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2049179621 title "Social Science, Scientism, and American Democracy" @default.
• W2049179621 cites W1499508716 @default.
• W2049179621 cites W1590452252 @default.
• W2049179621 cites W2053674426 @default.
• W2049179621 cites W2321024267 @default.
• W2049179621 cites W566893034 @default.
• W2049179621 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/rah.2014.0048" @default.
• W2049179621 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2049179621 type Work @default.
• W2049179621 sameAs 2049179621 @default.
• W2049179621 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2049179621 countsByYear W20491796212017 @default.
• W2049179621 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2049179621 hasAuthorship W2049179621A5024057305 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConcept C145038440 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConcept C2482559 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConcept C509535802 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConcept C555826173 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConcept C95124753 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConceptScore W2049179621C111472728 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConceptScore W2049179621C138885662 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConceptScore W2049179621C144024400 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConceptScore W2049179621C145038440 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConceptScore W2049179621C17744445 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConceptScore W2049179621C199539241 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConceptScore W2049179621C2482559 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConceptScore W2049179621C36289849 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConceptScore W2049179621C509535802 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConceptScore W2049179621C555826173 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConceptScore W2049179621C94625758 @default.
• W2049179621 hasConceptScore W2049179621C95124753 @default.
• W2049179621 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2049179621 hasLocation W20491796211 @default.
• W2049179621 hasOpenAccess W2049179621 @default.
• W2049179621 hasPrimaryLocation W20491796211 @default.
• W2049179621 hasRelatedWork W1501818425 @default.
• W2049179621 hasRelatedWork W1990097070 @default.
• W2049179621 hasRelatedWork W2009347013 @default.
• W2049179621 hasRelatedWork W2039541483 @default.
• W2049179621 hasRelatedWork W2333567094 @default.
• W2049179621 hasRelatedWork W2368420902 @default.
• W2049179621 hasRelatedWork W2409513307 @default.
• W2049179621 hasRelatedWork W2591697133 @default.
• W2049179621 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2049179621 hasRelatedWork W4245179951 @default.
• W2049179621 hasVolume "42" @default.
• W2049179621 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2049179621 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2049179621 magId "2049179621" @default.
• W2049179621 workType "article" @default.