Harding, Sandra. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?
1991, Ithaca: Cornell University Press
-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Björn Freter
Publisher's Note: Sandra Harding here develops further the themes first addressed in her widely influential book, The Science Question in Feminism, and conducts a compelling analysis of feminist theories on the philosophical problem of how we know what we know. Following a strong narrative line, Harding sets out her arguments in highly readable prose. In Part 1, she discusses issues that will interest anyone concerned with the social bases of scientific knowledge. In Part 2, she modifies some of her views and then pursues the many issues raised by the feminist position which holds that women's social experience provides a unique vantage point for discovering masculine bias and and questioning conventional claims about nature and social life. In Part 3, Harding looks at the insights that people of color, male feminists, lesbians, and others can bring to these controversies, and concludes by outlining a feminist approach to science in which these insights are central. "Women and men cannot understand or explain the world we live in or the real choices we have," she writes, "as long as the sciences describe and explain the world primarily from the perspectives of the lives of the dominant groups." Harding's is a richly informed, radical voice that boldly confronts issues of crucial importance to the future of many academic disciplines. Her book will amply reward readers looking to achieve a more fruitful understanding of the relations between feminism, science, and social life.
Comment : This is a stub entry. Please add your comments to help us expand itHarp, Randall, Kareem Khalifa. Why Pursue Unification? A Social-Epistemological Puzzle2015, Theoria. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science 30(3): 431-447.-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Nick Novelli
Abstract: Many have argued that unified theories ought to be pursued wherever possible. We deny this on the basis of social-epistemological and game-theoretic considerations. Consequently, those seeking a more ubiquitous role for unification must either attend to the scientific community's social structure in greater detail than has been the case, and/or radically revise their conception of unification.Comment : An interesting argument about how scientific practice influences the rationality of theory choice. Would be suited to any course where these issues are discussed.Hawley, Katherine. Science as a guide to Metaphysics?2006, Synthese 149(3): 451-470.-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Laura Jimenez
Abstract: Analytic metaphysics is in resurgence; there is renewed and vigorous interest in topics such as time, causation, persistence, parthood and possible worlds. Those who share this interest often pay lip-service to the idea that metaphysics should be informed by modern science; some take this duty very seriously. But there is also a widespread suspicion that science cannot really contribute to metaphysics, and that scientific findings grossly underdetermine metaphysical claims. Can science guide metaphysics? The author links this question to the the choice between Radical Pessimism on the one hand and either Moderate Pessimism or Optimism on the other.Comment : This paper investigates the relevance of science to metaphysics and could be used as a reading for postgraduate courses in philosophy of science (or metaphysics). It is an especially useful resource for courses on the metaphysics of time and contains a nice discussion of the relationship between presentism and special relativity.Hesse, Mary. The Hunt for Scientific Reason1980, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980: 3-22.-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Laura Jimenez
Abstract: The thesis of underdetermination of theory by evidence has led to an opposition between realism and relationism in philosophy of science. Various forms of the thesis are examined, and it is concluded that it is true in at least a weak form that brings realism into doubt. Realists therefore need, among other things, a theory of degrees of confirmation to support rational theory choice. Recent such theories due to Glymour and Friedman are examined, and it is argued that their criterion of "unification" for good theories is better formulated in Bayesian terms. Bayesian confirmation does, however, have consequences that tell against realism. It is concluded that the prospects are dim for scientific realism as usually understood.Comment : Good article to study in depth the concepts of realism, underdetermination, confirmation and Bayesian theory. It will be most useful for postgraduate students in philosophy of science.Hesse, Mary. The Structure of scientific inference1974, University of California Press.-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Laura Jimenez
Publisher's Note: A danger of a heavily formalist approach to the structure of science is that it may lose sight of the concrete actualities on which scientific inference is exercised. On the other hand, and excessively descriptive and relativist approach fails to achieve a general systematization of models of inference. This book tries to steer a middle course between these extremes. Hesse first discusses some epistemological problems bequeathed by positivists analyses of science and also considers the problem of inductive justification of theories in relation to evidence. Following Keynes and Carnap she argues that the axioms of probability constitute the best postulate system for a logic of confirmation.Comment : Highly recommended for undergraduates. It covers many important points of the topic: confirmation theory, generalizations, causal laws… It is useful for courses in philosophy of science but it could also serve as a further reading for courses in epistemology.Hesse, Mary. Models and analogies in science1966, University of Notre dame Press.-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Laura Jimenez
Summary: In this book Hesse argues, contra Duhem, that models and analogies are integral to understanding scientific practice in general and scientific advancement in particular, especially how the domain of a scientific theory is extended and how theories generate genuinely novel predictions. Hesse thinks that, in order help us to understand a new system or phenomenon, we will often create an analogical model that compares this new system or phenomenon with a more familiar system or phenomenon. Hesse distinguishes different types of analogies according to the kinds of similarity relations in which two objects enter: Positive analogies, negative analogies, and neutral analogies. The crux of the argument is that the recognition of similarities of meaning between paired terms and the recognition of similar causal relations within two analogies plays an essential role in theoretical explanation and prediction in science.Comment : This book is an accessible introduction to the topic of scientific modelling. Useful for teaching in undergraduate courses.Hesse, Mary. Models in Physics1953, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 4(15): 198-214.-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Laura Jimenez
Summary: In this article Hesse defends the idea that scientific theories are hypothetico-deductive in form. She examines this hypothetico-deductive method by considering some examples from nineteenth-century mathematical physics. By means of these examples she brings out two points about scientific hypothesis. The first is that mathematical formalisms, when used as hypotheses in the description of physical phenomena, may function like the mechanical models of an earlier stage in physics, without having in themselves any mechanical or other physical interpret. The second point is that most physicists do not regard models as literal descriptions of nature, but as standing in a relation of analogy to nature.Comment : A really good paper about models in science, mathematical formalism and hypothesis. Highly recomended for postgraduates studying philosophy of physics, although it could also be readable by undergraduates (last years) with previous knowledge of scientific modelling.Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. Empathy, Polyandry, and the Myth of the Coy Female1986, In Feminist Approaches to Science, Ruth Bleier, (ed.), New York: Pergamon.-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Benny Goldberg
Introduction: For over three decades, a handful of partially true assumptions were permitted to shape the construction of general evolutionary theories about sexual selection. These theories of sexual selection presupposed the existence of a highly discriminating, exually 'coy' female who was courted by sexually undiscriminating males. Work by female primatologists undermined these assumptions.Comment : This is an essential paper for any courses in standpoint epistemology, feminist philosophy of science, or general philosophy of science.Ivanova, Milena. Pierre Duhem’s Good Sense as a Guide to Theory Choice2010, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science part A 41(1): 58-64.-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Laura Jimenez, Contributed by: Ivanova, Milena
Abstract: This paper examines Duhem's concept of good sense as an attempt to support a non rule-governed account of rationality in theory choice. Faced with the underdetermination of theory by evidence thesis and the continuity thesis, Duhem tried to account for the ability of scientists to choose theories that continuously grow to a natural classification. The author examines the concept of good sense and the problems that stem from it. The paper presents a recent attempt by David Stump to link good sense to virtue epistemology. It is argued that even though this approach can be useful for the better comprehension of the concept of good sense, there are some substantial differences between virtue epistemologists and Duhem. The athor proposes a possible way to interpret the concept of good sense, which overcomes the noted problems and fits better with Duhem's views on scientific method and motivation in developing the concept of good sense.Comment : Interesting article that could serve as further reading in both epistemology courses and philosophy of science classes. Really good as an in-depth study of Duhem's views on scientific method. Recommendable for postgraduates or senior undergraduates.Ivanova, Milena. Friedman’s Relativised A Priori and Structural Realism: In Search of Compatibility2011, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 25 (1):23 - 37.-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Chris Blake-Turner, Contributed by: Milena Ivanova
Abstract: In this article I discuss a recent argument due to Dan McArthur, who suggests that the charge that Michael Friedman's relativised a priori leads to irrationality in theory change can be avoided by adopting structural realism. I provide several arguments to show that the conjunction of Friedman?s relativised a priori with structural realism cannot make the former avoid the charge of irrationality. I also explore the extent to which Friedman's view and structural realism are compatible, a presupposition of McArthur's argument. This compatibility is usually questioned, due to the Kantian aspect of Friedman's view, which clashes with the metaphysical premise of scientific realism. I argue that structural realism does not necessarily depend on this premise and as a consequence can be compatible with Friedman's view, but more importantly I question whether Friedman's view really implies mind dependenceCan’t find it?Contribute the texts you think should be here and we’ll add them soon!
-
-
-
This site is registered on Toolset.com as a development site. -
-
-
-
-
-