DOCSLIB.ORG

Curriculum Vitae

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Curriculum Vitae CURRICULUM VITAE Thomas Fredrick GIERYN Date of Birth: July 8, 1950 U.S. Citizen PRESENT POSITION: Rudy Professor Emeritus, Department of Sociology, Indiana University, Ballantine Hall, Bloomington, IN 47405; cell (812) 361-2011 e-mail: [email protected] [also: Adjunct Professor Emeritus of History & Philosophy of Science] EDUCATION: 1972 B.A. Magna Cum Laude, Kalamazoo College 1975 M.A., M. Phil., Columbia University 1980 Ph.D., Columbia University (Sociology) HONORS, FELLOWSHIPS AND GRANTS: 1969 Phi Eta Sigma Freshman Honorary Society 1971 Todd Sociological Prize, Kalamazoo College 1971 Phi Beta Kappa, Kalamazoo College [Chapter President, Gamma of Indiana, 1999-2000] 1972 Raymond L. Hightower Award, Kalamazoo College 1972 Phi Eta Sigma Founders' Fund Award for Graduate Study 1972 Danforth Foundation Scholarship Competition, Honorable Mention 1972-73 University Fellowship, Columbia University 1973-74 President's Fellowship, Columbia University 1976-77 John W. Burgess Distinguished Fellowship, Graduate Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University 1980, 1983 Summer Faculty Research Fellowship, Indiana University 1982 Edwin H. Sutherland Distinguished Teaching Award, Department of Sociology, Indiana University 1984 Research Award, American Sociological Association, Committee on Problems of the Discipline 1984-85 Fellowship, Multidisciplinary Seminar on "Science and Technology Studies," Dean of Faculties, Indiana University 2 1984 Summer Scholars Award, National Science Foundation, Program in History and Philosophy of Science 1988-90 Consultant, "Documenting Multi-Institutional Collaborations: A Case Study in Physics" Funded by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy, through the American Institute of Physics 1989 "Documenting Cold Fusion" National Science Foundation, Division of Social and Economic Sciences 1989-93 "Built Environments for Breakthrough Science: Constructing Laboratories for Biotechnology" Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, research grant 1994 President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching, Indiana University 1996 Internal Resident Fellow, Indiana Institute for Advanced Studies, IU [declined] 1996-97 The Ralph and Doris Hansmann Member for 1996-7, School of Social Science, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton 2000 Alliance of Distinguished Ranks Professors, Indiana University 2001 Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science 2001 Sociological Research Association 2002 Trustees' Teaching Award, Indiana University 2002-03 Fellow, College Arts and Humanities Institute, Indiana University 2004-05 Consultant, SRI International, "Cultural Authority of Science" Module for the 2006 General Social Survey (NSF Contract) 2005 Herman B Wells Distinguished Lecture, Society for Advanced Study, Indiana University, October 14 2006 Distinguished Visiting Lecturer, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta Canada, March 13-17 2009-11 "Rupture and Flow: The Circulation of Technoscientific Facts and Objects," Sawyer Seminar, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation 2015 Provost’s Medal, Indiana University Bloomington PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND OFFICES: 1973-present American Sociological Association (Chair, Committee on Sections, 2000-02). Sections: Culture; Science, Knowledge and Technology (elected to Council, 1989; elected Chair, 1999-2000) 1976-2018 Society for Social Studies of Science [4S] (Charter Member) (elected to Council, 1982-84; Secretary/Treasurer, 1985-88) 1980-2017 American Association for the Advancement of Science (Fellow, 2001) 1983-2017 History of Science Society PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES: 3 1977 Presider, Session on Altruism, Annual Meetings, American Sociological Association, Chicago 1978-81 Editorial Board, The American Sociologist 1978 Discussant, Session on Sociology of Science, Annual Meetings, American Sociological Association, San Francisco 1978 Program Committee and Session Chairman, 3rd Annual Meetings, Society for Social Studies of Science, Bloomington 1980 Presider and Discussant, Session on Sociology of Science, Annual Meetings, American Sociological Association, New York 1980-83 Book Review Board, J. for the History of the Behavioral Sciences 1981 Program Committee, 6th Annual Meetings, Society for Social Studies of Science, Atlanta 1981-95 Textbook Consultant, Random House Inc./McGraw-Hill 1982 Program Chairman, 7th Annual Meetings, Society for Social Studies of Science, Philadelphia 1982 Advisory Committee, Social Science Research Council, Subcommittee on Science Indicators 1982 Consultant, WHA Public Radio, Madison, WI. 1984-present Collaborating Editor, Social Studies of Science 1985 Organizer and Presider, Session on Sociology of Science, Annual Meetings, American Sociological Association, Washington 1985-89 Advisory Editor, Isis 1986 Discussant, Session on Comparative and Historical Sociology, Annual Meetings, American Sociological Association, New York. 1987-91 Advisory Editor, Sociological Inquiry. 1987 Discussant, NASA/Smithsonian Conference on Space Technology and Solar Science, Washington. 1987-94 Series Editor, Science, Technology and Society, Indiana University Press 1989 Oversight Panel, Program on History and Philosophy of Science, National Science Foundation 1989-90 Faculty Member, Honors Division, Indiana University 1990-94 Advisory Board, Exhibition on "Science in American Life," National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution 1990 Co-Organizer, Conference on "Technological Choices: American and European Experiences," Indiana University, April 12-14; Funded by the National Science Foundation. 1990 Program Co-Chair, 15th Annual Meetings, Society for Social Studies of Science, Minneapolis, October 18-21. 1990 Discussant, Session on Sociology of Science, American Sociological Association, Washington 1991 Discussant, Session on New Social Studies of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, 16th Annual Meeting, Society for Social Studies of Science, Cambridge, November 14. 4 1993 Editor, “Theme Issue: Technological Choices,” Science, Technology and Human Values 18, 3-4 1993 Program Chair, 18th Annual Meetings, Society for Social Studies of Science, West Lafayette, November. 1994 Discussant, Conference on “Scientific (Mis)Conduct and Social (Ir)Responsibility,” Poynter Center, Indiana University, March 27. 1994 Discussant, Conference on “Systems Theory and Postmodernism [Niklas Luhmann]” Indiana University. September 24. 1995 Discussant, Miniconference on “Can Social Theory Understand/Explain Technological Societies?” American Sociological Association, Washington, August 21 1995 Discussant, Session on “Identity and Knowledge-Making,” Society for Social Studies of Science, Charlottesville, October 21 1996 Organizer, Session on “Credibility and Authority,” Section on Science, Knowledge and Technology, American Sociological Association, New York, August 20 1996-2000 Faculty Member, Intensive Freshmen Seminar program, Indiana University 1997-8 Fellow, Freshmen Learning Project, Indiana University 1998-2000 Member, Bloomington Faculty Council, Indiana University [Agenda Committee] 1999 Organizer, Session on “Space and Place,” American Sociological Association, Chicago. 2000 Workshop, "Rethinking the 'and' in Humans and Nature," National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, March 10-15 2000 Head Teacher, Dutch Summer School on Science Studies, University of Twente, The Netherlands, September 4-8 2001 Workshop, "Wrestling with Nature," Dept. of History of Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison, April 26-8 2001 Discussant, Session on Boundary-Organization in Science, Society for Social Studies of Science, Cambridge, Nov. 2 2002 Advisor, Symposium on Kids, Architecture and Community; Columbus (Indiana) children's museum 2002 Discussant, Session on "Territory and Place: The Spatial Turn in Historical Analysis," American Sociological Association, Chicago, August 17 2002 Program Chair, Annual Meetings, Society for Social Studies of Science (4S), Milwaukee, November 3-5. 2003 External dissertation examiner, Esther Turnhout, Frije Universiteit Amsterdam 2003 External review committee, Dept. of History & Sociology of Science, University of Pennsylvania 2003 Panel on Interdisciplinarity, National Academies of Science, Washington, May 27-8 2003-present Editorial Board, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 5 2003 Organizer and Presider, Special Session on Place and Space, American Sociological Association, Atlanta, August 19 2003 Workshop, "Boundary-Work and Science," University of Tokyo, Japan, December 22 2004 Organizer and Presider, Session on Mutants/Hybrids/Monsters: Nature/Science/Society, American Sociological Association, San Francisco, August 15 2005 External review committee, University Maastricht, The Netherlands, Dec. 8 2006 Panelist, National Science Foundation, Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeships, Arlington, VA; June 15-16. 2006 Workshop on Social Organization of Science and Science Policy, National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA; July 13-14. 2006 Discussant, Session on “Culture, Materiality and the Modern City,” American Sociological Association, Montreal, August 13 2007 Discussant, "How Well Do 'Facts' Travel? -- Facts at the Frontier: Crossing Boundaries Between Natural and Social, Animal and Human,” London School of Economics, April 16-7 2007 Discussant, “Knowing Global Environments: New Perspectives in the History of the Field Sciences,” Philadelphia, May 10-12 2007 Commentator, Author Meets Critics Session, American Sociological Association, New York, August 11 2007 Discussant,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Curriculum Vitae
    BAS C. VAN FRAASSEN Curriculum Vitae Last updated 3/6/2019 I. Personal and Academic History .................................................................................................................... 1 List of Degrees Earned ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Title of Ph.D. Thesis ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Positions held ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Invited lectures and lecture series ........................................................................................................................................ 1 List of Honors, Prizes ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Research Grants .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Non-Academic Publications ................................................................................................................................................ 5 II. Professional Activities .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Scientific Method
    ISSUES AND TRENDS Jeffrey W. Bloom and Deborah Trumbull, Section Coeditors Beyond the Scientific Method: Model-Based Inquiry as a New Paradigm of Preference for School Science Investigations MARK WINDSCHITL, JESSICA THOMPSON, MELISSA BRAATEN Curriculum and Instruction, University of Washington, 115 Miller Hall, Box 353600, Seattle, WA 98195, USA Received 19 July 2007; revised 21 November 2007; accepted 29 November 2007 DOI 10.1002/sce.20259 Published online 4 January 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). ABSTRACT: One hundred years after its conception, the scientific method continues to reinforce a kind of cultural lore about what it means to participate in inquiry. As commonly implemented in venues ranging from middle school classrooms to undergraduate laboratories, it emphasizes the testing of predictions rather than ideas, focuses learners on material activity at the expense of deep subject matter understanding, and lacks epistemic framing relevant to the discipline. While critiques of the scientific method are not new, its cumulative effects on learners’ conceptions of science have not been clearly articulated. We discuss these effects using findings from a series of five studies with degree-holding graduates of our educational system who were preparing to enter the teaching profession and apprentice their own young learners into unproblematic images of how science is done. We then offer an alternative vision for investigative science—model-based inquiry (MBI)— as a system of activity and discourse that engages learners more deeply with content and embodies five epistemic characteristics of scientific knowledge: that ideas represented in the form of models are testable, revisable, explanatory, conjectural, and generative.
    [Show full text]
  • What's So Bad About Scientism? Moti Mizrahi Florida Institute Of
    What’s so bad about Scientism? Moti Mizrahi Florida Institute of Technology Abstract: In their attempt to defend philosophy from accusations of uselessness made by prominent scientists, such as Stephen Hawking, some philosophers respond with the charge of “scientism.” This charge makes endorsing a scientistic stance a mistake by definition. For this reason, it begs the question against these critics of philosophy, or anyone who is inclined to endorse a scientistic stance, and turns the scientism debate into a verbal dispute. In this paper, I propose a different definition of scientism, and thus a new way of looking at the scientism debate. Those philosophers who seek to defend philosophy against accusations of uselessness would do philosophy a much better service, I submit, if they were to engage with the definition of scientism put forth in this paper, rather than simply make it analytic that scientism is a mistake. Keywords: inference to the best explanation; epistemological scientism; scientistic stance; success of science 1. Introduction In their attempt to defend philosophy from accusations of uselessness made by prominent scientists, such as Hawking and Mlodinow (2010, p. 5), who write that “philosophy is dead,”1 some philosophers accuse these scientists of “scientism.” According to Pigliucci (2010, p. 235), the term ‘scientism’ “is in fact only used as an insult.” By “scientism,” Pigliucci (2010, p. 235) means, “the intellectual arrogance of some scientists who think that, given enough time and especially financial resources, science will be able to answer whatever meaningful questions we may wish to pose—from a cure for cancer to the elusive equation that will tell us how the laws of nature themselves came about” (emphasis added).2 And Sorell (2013, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Studies and the History of Science Author(S): Lorraine Daston Reviewed Work(S): Source: Critical Inquiry, Vol
    Science Studies and the History of Science Author(s): Lorraine Daston Reviewed work(s): Source: Critical Inquiry, Vol. 35, No. 4, The Fate of Disciplines Edited by James Chandler and Arnold I. Davidson (Summer 2009), pp. 798-813 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/599584 . Accessed: 15/12/2011 10:03 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Critical Inquiry. http://www.jstor.org Science Studies and the History of Science Lorraine Daston Introduction: Hard-hearted Adamant The current relation between science studies and the history of science brings to mind the opening scenes of A Midsummer Night’s Dream (or, minus the fairies, the high school comedy of your choice): Helena loves Demetrius, who used to love Helena, but now loves Hermia, who loves Lysander. A perfervid atmosphere of adolescence hangs over the play: rash promises, suicide threats, hyperbolic but sincere pledges of love and en- mity, and, above all, the breathless sense of everything being constantly up for grabs.
    [Show full text]
  • STS Departments, Programs, and Centers Worldwide
    STS Departments, Programs, and Centers Worldwide This is an admittedly incomplete list of STS departments, programs, and centers worldwide. If you know of additional academic units that belong on this list, please send the information to Trina Garrison at [email protected]. This document was last updated in April 2015. Other lists are available at http://www.stswiki.org/index.php?title=Worldwide_directory_of_STS_programs http://stsnext20.org/stsworld/sts-programs/ http://hssonline.org/resources/graduate-programs-in-history-of-science-and-related-studies/ Austria • University of Vienna, Department of Social Studies of Science http://sciencestudies.univie.ac.at/en/teaching/master-sts/ Based on high-quality research, our aim is to foster critical reflexive debate concerning the developments of science, technology and society with scientists and students from all disciplines, but also with wider publics. Our research is mainly organized in third party financed projects, often based on interdisciplinary teamwork and aims at comparative analysis. Beyond this we offer our expertise and know-how in particular to practitioners working at the crossroad of science, technology and society. • Institute for Advanced Studies on Science, Technology and Society (IAS-STS) http://www.ifz.tugraz.at/ias/IAS-STS/The-Institute IAS-STS is, broadly speaking, an Institute for the enhancement of Science and Technology Studies. The IAS-STS was found to give around a dozen international researchers each year - for up to nine months - the opportunity to explore the issues published in our annually changing fellowship programme. Within the frame of this fellowship programme the IAS-STS promotes the interdisciplinary investigation of the links and interaction between science, technology and society as well as research on the development and implementation of socially and environmentally sound, sustainable technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Science and Technology Studies
    Introduction to Science and Technology Studies Waseda University, SILS, Science, Technology and Society (LE202) The basic concepts Let’s take some very simplistic definitions of what we will be studying in this class. Science: Investigations of the physical world, including us and the stuff we make Technology: Making stuff, including stuff used by society, and in the production and dissemination of science Society: The sum total of our interactions as humans, including the interactions that we engage in to figure things out and to make things It should be clear that all of these are deeply interconnected. As this class proceeds, we will begin to develop a better picture of the fundamental nature of this interconnection. The field of Science and Technology Studies In this class we will explore the interaction of science, technology and society, especially in the recent past (20th & 21st centuries). • Science and Technology Studies (STS) is a relatively recent discipline, originating in the 60s and 70s, following Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). STS was the result of a “sociological turn” in science studies. • STS makes the assumption that science and technology are essentially intertwined and that they are each profoundly social and profoundly political. • We will spend some time trying to define science and technology in the next two weeks. • Today, I will try to make the case that science and technology are both social and political. Being critical In this class, we will try to develop a critical stance towards science and technology. This does not mean that we are going to cast them in a negative light, or that we need to develop a dislike for them.
    [Show full text]
  • Intro to Science Studies I
    PHIL 209A / SOCG 255A / HIGR 238 / COGR 225A Intro to Science Studies I Fall 2017 Instructor: Kerry McKenzie [email protected] Seminars: Tuesday 9.30-12.20pm, HSS 3027. Office Hours: Wednesday 2-4pm, HSS 8088. 1 Overview. This course is a philosophically slanted introduction to Science Studies. Our central question is a conceptual one, whose relevance to Science Studies should speak for itself – namely, what is science, and what distinguishes science from other fields? In grappling with this question we’ll familiarize ourselves with central works in the philosophy of science canon, and make glancing acquaintance with some more contemporary issues in scientific epistemology and metaphysics. But our guiding motif is a normative one: what, if anything, makes science entitled to the privileged status that it enjoys within culture? In more detail. The ‘question of demarcation’ – that of what, if anything, makes what we call ‘science’ science – was a central preoccupation of many of the major 20th century philosophers of science. While interest in this topic waned after the appearance of Larry Laudan’s ‘Demise of the Demarcation Problem’ in 1983, the question of what separates science from ‘pseudoscience’ is now making something of a comeback. In this course, we will review the approaches to demarcation offered by the philosophers Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos – all of which serve as concise introductions to the dominant themes of their work as a whole – and then examine some more contemporary approaches more centred on pragmatics and the philosophy of language. We will then consider how homeopathy – for most a pseudoscience par excellence – fares with regard to the criteria we’ll have studied.
    [Show full text]
  • Ernan Mcmullin's Thought on Science and Theology: an Appreciation
    Open Theology 2015; 1: 512–523 Science and/or Religion: a 21st Century Debate Open Access Research Article Amerigo Barzaghi*, Josep Corcó Ernan McMullin’s Thought on Science and Theology: An Appreciation DOI 10.1515/opth-2015-0032 Received July 30, 2015; accepted September 24, 2015 Abstract: The thought of Ernan McMullin on the relationship between science and theology can be summarized with a word that he himself used: consonance. We briefly describe this epistemological proposal, and we show a concrete instance of its application by way of a short analysis of one of McMullin’s interdisciplinary works, “Cosmic Purpose and the Contingency of Human Evolution.” With the help of the authoritative comment that William Stoeger has made on this paper, we sketch McMullin’s effort to find a consonance between two different claims: the theological one – humans expected – and the evolutionary one – humans unexpected. In this case, consonance is reached by recurring to the classic Augustinian notion of the atemporality of God. We then show how McMullin’s way of interpreting consonance affects the question of the viability of a natural theology in a scientifically informed era. In fact, his distrust of various kinds of natural theology is another crucial aspect of his epistemological framework for interdisciplinary dialogue. Keywords: consonance, Ernan McMullin, evolutionary contingency, natural theology Introduction Ernan McMullin (1924-2011) was an Irish thinker very well-known for being a learned scholar in different disciplines. During his long career, he provided important contributions in distinct areas of knowledge, such as the philosophy of science, the history of science, and the science-theology relationship.1 In this paper, we will focus on some of McMullin’s reflections in the third of these fields of inquiry.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Empiricism and Science Policy Kristina Rolin and K
    Science Studies 2/2008 Social Empiricism and Science Policy Kristina Rolin and K. Brad Wray Miriam Solomon’s Social Empiricism is an exceptional work in contemporary philoso- phy of science in that it aims to contribute to science policy, and not merely to a philo- sophical debate about the social nature of scientifi c knowledge. In an attempt to con- tribute to science policy, Solomon proposes a novel theory of scientifi c rationality. She claims that we should evaluate scientifi c communities on the basis of how well they succeed in distributing research effort, instead of evaluating the reasoning and deci- sion-making of individual scientists. We argue that Solomon’s anti-individualist theory of scientifi c rationality does not provide an adequate account of epistemic responsibil- ity. We argue also that social empiricism fails to be relevant to science policy because science policy makers are not capable of identifying the kind of factors that social em- piricism deems as relevant to science policy. Keywords: philosophy of science, social epistemology, science policy During the last three decades a number ally or collectively (see e.g., Haack, 1996; of scholars in science and technology Rolin, 2002). Philosophers of science studies have challenged philosophy of have responded to concerns about the science by claiming that social values role of social values in the production play a more signifi cant role in the pro- of scientifi c knowledge in a variety of duction of scientifi c knowledge than ways. One response has been to design what philosophers have acknowledged ways to strengthen the methods of sci- (see e.g., Barnes, 1977; Bloor, 1991; Proc- entifi c reasoning in the hope of mini- tor, 1991; Shapin and Schaffer, 1985).
    [Show full text]
  • Reconstructing the Past, Constructing the Present: Can Science Studies and the History of Science Live Happily Ever After?
    Reconstructing the past, Constructing the Present: Can Science Studies and the History of Science Live Happily Ever after? Author(s): Sheila Jasanoff Source: Social Studies of Science, Vol. 30, No. 4 (Aug., 2000), pp. 621-631 Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/285783 Accessed: 26-02-2016 19:31 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Studies of Science. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Fri, 26 Feb 2016 19:31:33 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions sss COMMENT ABSTRACT Historical and contemporary social studies of science and technology have developed an asymmetrical relationship in recent years. While historical research has been regarded as crucial to the project of contemporary theorizing, science studies is still regarded by many as incompatible with history of science's mission of faithfully reconstructing the past. This Comment suggests that the two fields can usefully collaborate in the task of democratizing science and technology. They have in common an interest in making science and technology more transparent, resurrecting vanished actors and voices, representing the hybrid networks of science and society and, not least, educating students about the societal dimensions of science and technology.
    [Show full text]
  • The Humanist Perspective, in Social Science : the Case of Erich Fromm.
    THE HUMANIST PERSPECTIVE, IN SOCIAL SCIENCE: THE CASE OF ERICH FROMM KENNETH 0 ' BRI EN B.A. (Honours) Social Sciences, University of Leicester, England, 1968 M.A., Sociology, Simon Fraser University, 1969 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department of Pol itical Science, Sociology and Anthropology @ KENNETH O'BRIEN 1972 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY April 1972 APPROVAL I Name : Kenneth 0' Brien Degree : Doctor of Phi 1osophy Title of Di ertation: The Humanist Perspective in Soci a1 Science: The Case of Erich Fromm Examining Committee: Chairman: Gary Rush Ernest Becker Senior Supervisor Karl Peter Heribert Adam Jeral d Zasl ove John ~fiaar External Examiner University of Cal ifornia, Santa Cruz, Cal ifornia Date Approved: L$L3L3A97L I ABSTRACT The dissertation is an examination of Erich Fromm's contribu- tion to humanist social science and a discussion of this contribution. It is suggested that From~n'smajor contribution is not accessible to social scientists in its directly apparent form. As a serious contri- bution to social science the immediately apparent meanings, of Fromm's ideas which are rendered at first reading of his writings, are quite 'deceptive. ' This deceptive quality in Fromm's opus has tended to re- sult in a number of critical articles and books on Fromm which stress his contributions as being that of an ethical philosopher rather than as a social scientist. This type of judgement has serious implications for the present situation whereby Fronun's work is generally regarded to be on the periphery of "institutional ized social science" conceptual- izations and consequently for advancement of the more recent development toward theoretical integration of the various disciplines which come under the rubric of the social sciences (i.e., sociology, social psy- chology, pol itical science and anthropology) .
    [Show full text]
  • Kuhn and Philosophy of Science in the Twentieth Century
    Kuhn and Philosophy of Science in the Twentieth Century Introduction Thomas Kuhn was undoubtedly the strongest influence on the philosophy of science in the last third of the twentieth century. Yet today, at the beginning of the twenty-first century it is unclear what his legacy really is. In the philosophy of science there is no characteristically Kuhnian school. This could be because we are all Kuhnians now. But it might also be because Kuhn’s thought, although revolutionary in its time, has since been superseded. In a sense both may be true. We are all Copernicans—yet almost everything Copernicus believed we now disbelieve. In this paper I shall examine the development of Kuhn’s thought in connection with changes in the philosophy of science during the second half of the twentieth century. Now that philosophy in general, philosophy of science in particular, is in a post-positivist era, we all share Kuhn’s rejection of positivism. But we do not, for the most part, share Kuhn’s belief in incommensurability, or his scepticism about truth and objective knowledge. Just as in Copernicus’ case, Kuhn initiated a revolution that went far beyond what he himself envisaged or even properly understood. Philosophy of science in the second half of the twentieth century Philosophy of science in the second half of the twentieth century underwent a curious apostasy and apparent reconversion. In the decades following the Second World War philosophy of science was still dominated by logical empiricism. Logical positivism, the most influential version of logical empiricism, was waning, but even so some of its central problems remained the concern of philosophers of science.
    [Show full text]