FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W280312534> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W280312534 startingPage "141" @default.
• W280312534 abstract "1. Introduction The so-called 'Sokal-affair' in 1996 (1) gave rise to a new wave of debates between the traditional philosophy of science and the relatively new sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) (2). Due to the radical nature of the arguments presented these debates have become widely known as the 'science wars'. Often enough, these debates have been depicted as if the status of scientific knowledge were at stake there. Do the sciences discover new facts of reality and objective laws of nature, or should we regard scientific truths as purely social conventions? In principle, this is a continuation of old philosophical debates between realism and anti-realism (or objectivism and relativism) in a new territory. SSK has been engaged in these debates since the 1970s when the first theoretical SSK programme--the strong programme--emerged. As the theoretical core of several SSK programmes and schools involves epistemic relativism, this particular debate between philosophers and sociologists of knowledge is also known as the debate between (scientific) realism and (sociological) relativism. One reason why this debate has continued for a long time is the wide range of mutual misinterpretations. Ian Hacking has described the opposition in these 'science wars' as follows: one side tends to combine irrelevant metaphysics with a rage against reason while the other side insists upon scientific metaphysics and an Enlightenment faith in reason (Hacking 1999:62). The conflict between these two parties seems irreconcilable. It is true that there have been several attempts of reconciliation, however, sooner or later, the controversy between philosophy of science and sociology of scientific knowledge has emerged again. In the present paper, I aim to show, on the example of a particular theoretical argument often applied in the debate in question--the Duhem-Quine thesis of underdetermination of theories by data (DQT)--that the intended argument of the adherents of SSK may have rather unexpected consequences, and, therefore, it cannot be regarded as a compelling argument for one of the debating parties. I am going to question the correctness of the application of the argument, for I find that the argument of underdetermination alone neither justifies the relativist programme of SSK nor refutes scientific realism. It is important to note that I shall distinguish between the general underdetermination thesis (UDT) and the Duhem-Quine thesis (DQT). The latter allows to reconcile opponents in the 'science wars' debate, the former--not necessarily. (3) On the other hand, it is not my main purpose to criticise SSK for the application of DQT. SSK has been extensively criticised by other philosophers of science. I see this particular case of the application of the underdetermination thesis in SSK as a unique opportunity for analysing the assumptions implicit in the 'science-wars' debates. For example, a more detailed analysis of both the SSK views and several versions of scientific realism results in the conclusion that these positions, previously considered as opposites, rather have certain similarities. As soon as one makes a further distinction between different levels of relativism, such as relativism in ontology and relativism in epistemology, it begins to appear that both SSK and most versions of scientific realism reject ontological relativism and accept epistemic relativism. (4) This distinction between different levels of relativism has received no attention from the 'science warriors'. Also, I am going to indicate another possible source of misunderstanding in the 'science wars'. These wars largely rest on an inadequate dichotomy--the dichotomy of the 'rational' and the 'social' (i.e. the rational reconstruction vs. social explanation of scientific beliefs). (5) The disjunctive either ... or ... -structure is unsuitable for reconstructing and interpreting the concepts of the 'rational' and the 'social' in explanations of theory choice. …" @default.
• W280312534 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W280312534 creator A5059722511 @default.
• W280312534 date "2002-06-01" @default.
• W280312534 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W280312534 title "The 'Science Wars' and the Duhem-Quine Argument of Underdetermination" @default.
• W280312534 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W280312534 type Work @default.
• W280312534 sameAs 280312534 @default.
• W280312534 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W280312534 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W280312534 hasAuthorship W280312534A5059722511 @default.
• W280312534 hasConcept C103138315 @default.
• W280312534 hasConcept C110099512 @default.
• W280312534 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W280312534 hasConcept C128706718 @default.
• W280312534 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W280312534 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W280312534 hasConcept C182744844 @default.
• W280312534 hasConcept C185305159 @default.
• W280312534 hasConcept C195732255 @default.
• W280312534 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W280312534 hasConcept C2482559 @default.
• W280312534 hasConcept C2775987403 @default.
• W280312534 hasConcept C2776261394 @default.
• W280312534 hasConcept C514301927 @default.
• W280312534 hasConcept C543847140 @default.
• W280312534 hasConcept C75923793 @default.
• W280312534 hasConcept C9270016 @default.
• W280312534 hasConceptScore W280312534C103138315 @default.
• W280312534 hasConceptScore W280312534C110099512 @default.
• W280312534 hasConceptScore W280312534C111472728 @default.
• W280312534 hasConceptScore W280312534C128706718 @default.
• W280312534 hasConceptScore W280312534C138885662 @default.
• W280312534 hasConceptScore W280312534C17744445 @default.
• W280312534 hasConceptScore W280312534C182744844 @default.
• W280312534 hasConceptScore W280312534C185305159 @default.
• W280312534 hasConceptScore W280312534C195732255 @default.
• W280312534 hasConceptScore W280312534C199539241 @default.
• W280312534 hasConceptScore W280312534C2482559 @default.
• W280312534 hasConceptScore W280312534C2775987403 @default.
• W280312534 hasConceptScore W280312534C2776261394 @default.
• W280312534 hasConceptScore W280312534C514301927 @default.
• W280312534 hasConceptScore W280312534C543847140 @default.
• W280312534 hasConceptScore W280312534C75923793 @default.
• W280312534 hasConceptScore W280312534C9270016 @default.
• W280312534 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W280312534 hasLocation W2803125341 @default.
• W280312534 hasOpenAccess W280312534 @default.
• W280312534 hasPrimaryLocation W2803125341 @default.
• W280312534 hasRelatedWork W1187397977 @default.
• W280312534 hasRelatedWork W1518870478 @default.
• W280312534 hasRelatedWork W187087838 @default.
• W280312534 hasRelatedWork W1982021227 @default.
• W280312534 hasRelatedWork W1986924754 @default.
• W280312534 hasRelatedWork W2003053410 @default.
• W280312534 hasRelatedWork W2136276158 @default.
• W280312534 hasRelatedWork W2137055036 @default.
• W280312534 hasRelatedWork W2263224279 @default.
• W280312534 hasRelatedWork W2419343406 @default.
• W280312534 hasRelatedWork W2462900063 @default.
• W280312534 hasRelatedWork W2492734462 @default.
• W280312534 hasRelatedWork W2599532201 @default.
• W280312534 hasRelatedWork W2602563620 @default.
• W280312534 hasRelatedWork W2883692593 @default.
• W280312534 hasRelatedWork W3010295514 @default.
• W280312534 hasRelatedWork W3011950365 @default.
• W280312534 hasRelatedWork W3189469040 @default.
• W280312534 hasRelatedWork W595092070 @default.
• W280312534 hasRelatedWork W609667023 @default.
• W280312534 hasVolume "6" @default.
• W280312534 isParatext "false" @default.
• W280312534 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W280312534 magId "280312534" @default.
• W280312534 workType "article" @default.