Science legitimacy and the postmodern condition of knowledge
Keywords:
Science, Objectivity, Epistemology, Philosophy, PostmodernityAbstract
We start by showing how science is as much a personal as a social endeavour, carefully driven between convictions and scepticism, depending on strictly defined criteria that are made possible through a conjunction of social norms intimately connected to epistemological principles. If the sociological contexts play an important role, we must recognize that science compensates their influence with the experimental gathering of evidences. However knowledge always requires a link to tradition, believe and authority, i.e., tacit knowledge and a fiduciary framework.
Objectivity can also be supported by science’s success to describe and transform reality, within a renewed process that continuously expands what we know and can transform. This attests the power of science that meanwhile was separated from the ethical dimension required to all kind of knowledge appliance, thus redirecting us to the sociological contexts of science.
We then refer to how science’s sociological structures consequently changed when the dimension, cost and importance of science for economic progress was such that responsibility for it was taken from the hands of scientists. The age of competition for scarce resources marks the end of pure intellectual competition in which science’s progress was conditioned mainly by individual creativity. That’s why sociological factors regain nowadays a much more important role to play in science dynamics.
The paper concludes by presenting how a new sociologically framework of scientific knowledge is emerging: the “fourth age of research” driven by international collaborations between elite research groups, strongly guided for markets, and once again science’s autonomy is at stake.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Adams, J. (2013). The fourth age of research. Nature, 497, 557-560.
Bloor, .(1976/1991). Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Borgman, C. L. & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 3-72.
Carnap, R. (1928/1952). The logical structure of the world. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Diéguez-Lucena, A. (2006). Why does Laudan’s confutation of convergent realism fail? Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 37, 393-403.
Dupré, J. (1990). Scientific Pluralism and the Plurality of the Sciences: Comments on David Hull's Science as a Process. Philosophical Studies, 60, 61-76.
Formosinho, S. (1998). “O sistema de avaliação por pares numa ciência em regime estacionário” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 54, pp. 551-533.
Formosinho, S. J. (1994). O Imprimatur da Ciência, Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.
Gelwick, R. 1991. Michael Polanyi and the Philosophy of Medicine. Tradition & Discovery, 18 (3), 21-29.
Goodstein, D. (1966). Conduct and Misconduct in Science. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 775, pp.31-38.
Gottfried, K. & Wilson, K.G. (1977). Science as a cultural construct. Nature, 386, pp. 545-547.
Gusdorf, G. (1960). Introduction aux sciences humaines. Paris: Societé des Belles Lettres.
Harbers, J. A. (2005). Science in Context: The Paradoxes of Universalism and Liberalism. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30 (4), p. 575-582.
Hess, D. J. (1997). Science studies: An advanced introduction. New York: New York University Press.
Hull, D. L. (1998). Studying the study of science scientifically. Perspectives on Science, 6 (3), 209-231.
Kaiser, D. (1998). A Manheim for all seasons: Bloor, Merton and the roots of the sociology of scientific knowledge. Science in Context, 11, 51-87.
Kalleberg, R. (2007). A reconstruction of the ethos of science. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7 (2), 137-160.
Koertge, N. (1998). A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science. Accessed at www.oxfordscholarship.com.(2012), pp. 4-7.
Kostoff, R. N., Research Programme Peer Review. Principles, Practices, Protocols. Accessed at www.dtic.mil/dtic/kostoff/index.html.
Kuhn, T.S. (1972). La structure des révolutions scientifiques. Paris: Flammarion.
Lane, J. (2010). Let's make science metrics more scientific. Nature, 464 (7288), 488-489.
Laudan, L. (1981). A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science, 48 (1), (March, 81), pp. 19-49.
Lawrence, P.A., Locke, M. (1997). A Man for our Season. Nature, 386, pp.757-758.
Lee, C., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G. & Cronin, B. (2013). Advances in information science. Bias in Peer Review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64 (1), 2-17.
Livingstone, D. N. (2003). Putting Science in Its Place. Geographies of Scientific Knowledge. Chicago: University Chicago Press.
Lyotard, J.-:F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minniapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press.
Merton, R. (1942). On social structure and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Merton, R. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago: University Chicago Press.
Mitchell, M. T. (2006). Michael Polanyi. The art of knowing. Delaware: ISI Books.
Murphy, N. (1990). Theology in the age of scientific reasoning. New York: Cornell University Press.
Pickering, A. (1984). Constructing quarks: A sociological history of particle physics. Chicago: University Chicago Press.
Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Polanyi, M. (1957). Scientific outlook: Its sickness and cure. Science, 125 (March, 1957), 480-504.
Polkinghorne, J. 1994. Science and Christian belief. Theological reflections of a bottom-up thinker. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Price, D. J. de S. (1962). The exponential curve of science. In
B. Barber and W. Hirsch (Eds.). The sociology of science (pp. 516–524). New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Price, D. J. de S. (1963/1986). Little Science, big Science and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.
Price, D. J. de S. (1964). The science of science. In M. Goldsmith and A. Mackay. The science of science (pp. 195–208). London: Souvenir Press.
Price, D. J. de S. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149 (July 30), 510-515.
Reber, B. (2007). Entre participation et déliberation: Le débat public et ses analyses sont-ils hybrides du point de vue des théories politiques? Klesis - Revue Philosophique: Philosophie et Sociologie, Novembre 2007, 46-78.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2013). Scientific genius is extinct. Nature, 493, 602.
Sismondo. S.(2010). An introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Oxford: Blackwell.
Truran, P. (2013). Practical Applications of the Philosophy of Science. Thinking about Research. Springer.
Tyfield, D. (2008). The impossibility of finitism: From SSK to ESK? Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 1(1), 61-86.
Ziman, J. (1994). Prometheus Bound. Science in a dynamic steady state. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ziman, J. (1997). Is Science losing its objectivity? Nature, 382, pp. 751-754.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors can retain copyright, while granting the journal right of first publication. Alternatively, authors can transfer copyright to the journal, which then permits authors non-commercial use of the work, including the right to place it in an open access archive. In addition, Creative Commons can be consulted for flexible copyright licenses.
©1999 Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.