DOCSLIB.ORG

Philosophy of the Social Sciences Blackwell Philosophy Guides Series Editor: Steven M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Philosophy of the Social Sciences Blackwell Philosophy Guides Series Editor: Steven M The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences Blackwell Philosophy Guides Series Editor: Steven M. Cahn, City University of New York Graduate School Written by an international assembly of distinguished philosophers, the Blackwell Philosophy Guides create a groundbreaking student resource – a complete critical survey of the central themes and issues of philosophy today. Focusing and advancing key arguments throughout, each essay incorporates essential background material serving to clarify the history and logic of the relevant topic. Accordingly, these volumes will be a valuable resource for a broad range of students and readers, including professional philosophers. 1 The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology Edited by John Greco and Ernest Sosa 2 The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory Edited by Hugh LaFollette 3 The Blackwell Guide to the Modern Philosophers Edited by Steven M. Emmanuel 4 The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic Edited by Lou Goble 5 The Blackwell Guide to Social and Political Philosophy Edited by Robert L. Simon 6 The Blackwell Guide to Business Ethics Edited by Norman E. Bowie 7 The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Science Edited by Peter Machamer and Michael Silberstein 8 The Blackwell Guide to Metaphysics Edited by Richard M. Gale 9 The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education Edited by Nigel Blake, Paul Smeyers, Richard Smith, and Paul Standish 10 The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind Edited by Stephen P. Stich and Ted A. Warfield 11 The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences Edited by Stephen P. Turner and Paul A. Roth 12 The Blackwell Guide to Continental Philosophy Edited by Robert C. Solomon and David Sherman 13 The Blackwell Guide to Ancient Philosophy Edited by Christopher Shields The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences Edited by Stephen P. Turner and Paul A. Roth © 2003 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5018, USA 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK 550 Swanston Street, Carlton South, Melbourne, Victoria 3053, Australia Kurfürstendamm 57, 10707 Berlin, Germany The right of Stephen P. Turner and Paul A. Roth to be identified as the Authors of the Editorial Material in this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. First published 2003 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of the social sciences / edited by Stephen Turner and Paul A. Roth. p. cm. – (Blackwell philosophy guides) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-631-21537-9 (alk. paper) – ISBN 0-631-21538-7 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Social sciences – Philosophy. I. Turner, Stephen P., 1951– II. Roth, Paul Andrew, 1948– III. Series. H61 .B4774 2003 300′.1 – dc21 2002004263 A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library. Set in 10/13pt Galliard by Graphicraft Limited, Hong Kong Printed and bound in the United Kingdom by TJ International, Padstow, Cornwall For further information on Blackwell Publishing, visit our website: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com Contents Notes on Contributors vii Introduction. Ghosts and the Machine: Issues of Agency, Rationality, and Scientific Methodology in Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science 1 Stephen P. Turner and Paul A. Roth Part I Pasts 19 1 Cause, the Persistence of Teleology, and the Origins of the Philosophy of Social Science 21 Stephen P. Turner 2 Phenomenology and Social Inquiry: From Consciousness to Culture and Critique 42 Brian Fay 3 Twentieth-century Philosophy of Social Science in the Analytic Tradition 64 Thomas Uebel Part II Programs 89 4 Critical Theory as Practical Knowledge: Participants, Observers, and Critics 91 James Bohman 5 Decision Theory and Degree of Belief 110 Piers Rawling v Contents 6 The Methodology of Rational Choice 143 Lars Udehn 7 Mathematical Modeling in the Social Sciences 166 Paul Humphreys 8 The Practical Turn 185 David G. Stern 9 Science & Technology Studies and the Philosophy of Social Sciences 207 Steve Fuller Part III Problematics 235 10 “See Also Literary Criticism”: Social Science Between Fact and Figures 237 Hans Kellner 11 The Descent of Evolutionary Explanations: Darwinian Vestiges in the Social Sciences 258 Lynn Hankinson Nelson 12 How Standpoint Methodology Informs Philosophy of Social Science 291 Sandra Harding 13 Beyond Understanding: The Career of the Concept of Understanding in the Human Sciences 311 Paul A. Roth Bibliography 334 Index 368 vi Notes on Contributors James Bohman is Danforth Professor of Philosophy at Saint Louis University, Missouri. He is author of Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy (1996) and New Philosophy of Social Science: Problems of Indeterminacy (1991). He has also recently coedited books on Deliberative Democracy (with William Rehg) and Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal (with Matthias Lutz-Bachmann). He is currently writing on the epistemology of interpretation and on globalization and democracy. Brian Fay is the William Griffin Professor of Philosophy at Wesleyan University. His publications include Social Theory and Political Practice (1976), Critical Social Science (1987), and Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science. A Multicultural Approach (Blackwell 1997). He is also editor of the journal History and Theory. Steve Fuller is Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, UK. He is best known for the research program of “social epistemology,” which he has developed in a journal and seven books. He is currently working on two books: The Philosophy of Science and Technology Studies and Reimagining Sociology. Lynn Hankinson Nelson is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Missouri at St. Louis. She is the author of Who Knows: From Quine to a Feminist Empiricism (1990), coauthor with Jack Nelson of On Quine (2000), and co- editor with Jack Nelson of Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science (1996) and Feminist Interpretations of Quine (forthcoming). Sandra Harding is a philosopher in the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies and in Women’s Studies at the University of California at Los Angeles. She also is coeditor of Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. She is the author or editor of 10 books on issues in epistemology, philosophy of science, methodology, feminist theory, and postcolonial theory, including The Science Question in Feminism (1986), Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? vii Notes on Contributors Thinking From Women’s Lives (1991), and Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies (1998). Paul Humphreys is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Virginia. His current research interests include explanation, causation, probability, emergence, and computer models of cultural evolution. His books include Extending Our- selves: Computational Science, Empiricism, and Scientific Method (2003) and The Chances of Explanation (1989). Hans Kellner is Professor of Rhetoric at the University of Texas, Arlington. He is the author of Language and Historical Representation: Getting the Story Crooked (1989), coeditor (with F. R. Ankersmit) of A New Philosophy of History, and author of many articles on historical and rhetorical theory. Piers Rawling is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Missouri at St. Louis (currently visiting at Florida State University). He has published articles on decision theory, ethics, logic, philosophy of language, and philosophy of science. Paul A. Roth is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Missouri at St. Louis. He is the author of Meaning and Method in the Social Sciences (1979) and a member of the editorial board of Philosophy of the Social Sciences. He has pub- lished extensively on problems of explanation. David G. Stern is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Iowa. He is the author of Wittgenstein on Mind and Language (1995) and Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations: An Introduction (CUP forthcoming) and the co- editor of The Cambridge Companion to Wittgenstein (1996) and Wittgenstein Reads Weininger (forthcoming). Stephen P. Turner is Graduate Research Professor and Chair of the Philosophy Department, University of South Florida. His books in the area of history and philosophy of social science include Sociological Explanation as Translation (1980), The Search for a Methodology of Social Science: Durkheim, Weber, and the Nine- teenth Century Problem of Cause, Probability, and Action (1994), The Social Theory of Practices: Tradition, Tacit Knowledge, and Presuppositions (1994), and most recently, Brains/Practices/Relativism: Social Theory after Cognitive Science (2002). In addition, he has written extensively on methodological and philosophy of law issues in relation to Max Weber. Thomas Uebel is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at University of Manchester, UK. His publications include Overcoming Logical Positivism From Within (1992) and Vernunftkritik und Wissenschaft (2000). He is the editor of Rediscovering the Forgotten Vienna Circle (1991) and coauthor with Nancy Cartwright et al. of Otto Neurath: Philosophy Between Science and Politics (1996). Lars Udehn is Professor
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Philosophical Theory-Construction and the Self-Image of Philosophy
    Open Journal of Philosophy, 2014, 4, 231-243 Published Online August 2014 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojpp http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2014.43031 Philosophical Theory-Construction and the Self-Image of Philosophy Niels Skovgaard Olsen Department of Philosophy, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany Email: [email protected] Received 25 May 2014; revised 28 June 2014; accepted 10 July 2014 Copyright © 2014 by author and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Abstract This article takes its point of departure in a criticism of the views on meta-philosophy of P.M.S. Hacker for being too dismissive of the possibility of philosophical theory-construction. But its real aim is to put forward an explanatory hypothesis for the lack of a body of established truths and universal research programs in philosophy along with the outline of a positive account of what philosophical theories are and of how to assess them. A corollary of the present account is that it allows us to account for the objective dimension of philosophical discourse without taking re- course to the problematic idea of there being worldly facts that function as truth-makers for phi- losophical claims. Keywords Meta-Philosophy, Hacker, Williamson, Philosophical Theories 1. Introduction The aim of this article is to use a critical discussion of the self-image of philosophy presented by P. M. S. Hacker as a platform for presenting an alternative, which offers an account of how to think about the purpose and cha- racter of philosophical theories.
    [Show full text]
  • Ernest Sosa and Virtuously Begging the Question
    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 9 May 18th, 9:00 AM - May 21st, 5:00 PM Ernest Sosa and virtuously begging the question Michael Walschots University of Windsor Scott F. Aikin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Walschots, Michael and Aikin, Scott F., "Ernest Sosa and virtuously begging the question" (2011). OSSA Conference Archive. 38. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA9/papersandcommentaries/38 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Conference Proceedings at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ernest Sosa and virtuously begging the question MICHAEL WALSCHOTS Department of Philosophy University of Windsor 401 Sunset Ave. Windsor, ON N9P 3B4 Canada [email protected] ABSTRACT: This paper discusses the notion of epistemic circularity, supposedly different from logical circu- larity, and evaluates Ernest Sosa’s claim that this specific kind of circular reasoning is virtuous rather than vicious. I attempt to determine whether or not the conditions said to make epistemic circularity a permissible instance of begging the question could make other instances of circular reasoning equally permissible. KEYWORDS: begging the question, circular reasoning, Ernest Sosa, epistemic circularity, petitio principii, reliabilism. 1. INTRODUCTION In 1986, William Alston introduced the idea of ‘epistemic circularity’, which involves assuming the reliability of a given source of belief during the process of proving the reli- ability of that same source.
    [Show full text]
  • Maps and Protest Martine Drozdz
    Maps and Protest Martine Drozdz To cite this version: Martine Drozdz. Maps and Protest. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Elsevier, pp.367-378, 2020, 10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10575-X. hal-02432374 HAL Id: hal-02432374 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02432374 Submitted on 16 Jan 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Martine Drozdz LATTS, Université Paris-Est, Marne-la-Vallée, France 6-8 Avenue Blaise Pascal, Cité Descartes, 77455 Marne-la-Vallée, Cedex 2, France martine.drozdz[at]enpc.fr This article is part of a project that has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant agreement No. 680313). Author's personal copy Provided for non-commercial research and educational use. Not for reproduction, distribution or commercial use. This article was originally published in International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 2nd Edition, published by Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the author's benefit and for the benefit of the author's institution, for non-commercial research and educational use, including without limitation, use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific colleagues who you know, and providing a copy to your institution's administrator.
    [Show full text]
  • Nijaz Ibrulj Faculty of Philosophy University of Sarajevo BOSNIA PORPHYRIANA an OUTLINE of the DEVELOPMENT of LOGIC in BOSNIA AN
    UDK 16 (497.6) Nijaz Ibrulj Faculty of philosophy University of Sarajevo BOSNIA PORPHYRIANA AN OUTLINE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOGIC IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Abstract The text is a drought outlining the development of logic in Bosnia and Herzegovina through several periods of history: period of Ottoman occupation and administration of the Empire, period of Austro-Hungarian occupation and administration of the Monarchy, period of Communist regime and administration of the Socialist Republic and period from the aftermath of the aggression against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to this day (the Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina) and administration of the International Community. For each of the aforementioned periods, the text treats the organization of education, the educational paradigm of the model, status of logic as a subject in the educational system of a period, as well as the central figures dealing with the issue of logic (as researchers, lecturers, authors) and the key works written in each of the periods, outlining their main ideas. The work of a Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry, “Introduction” (Greek: Eijsagwgh;v Latin: Isagoge; Arabic: Īsāġūğī) , can be seen, in all periods of education in Bosnia and Herze - govina, as the main text, the principal textbook, as a motivation for logical thinking. That gave me the right to introduce the syntagm Bosnia Porphyriana. SURVEY 109 1. Introduction Man taman ṭaqa tazandaqa. He who practices logic becomes a heretic. 1 It would be impossible to elaborate the development of logic in Bosnia
    [Show full text]
  • Waldomiro José Silva Filho1 Marcos Antonio Alves2
    Presentation Editorial / Editorial PRESENTATION Waldomiro José Silva Filho 1 Marcos Antonio Alves 2 It is with great happiness and honor that we present this special issue of Trans/Form/Ação: Unesp journal of philosophy in honor of Ernest Sosa. One of the most influential voices in the contemporary philosophy, Ernest Sosa was born in Cárdenas, Cuba, on June 17, 1940. He earned his Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) and Master of Arts (M.A.) from the University of Miami and his Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) from the University of Pittsburgh in 1964. Since 2007, he has been Board of Governors Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University. There is no doubt that Sosa is responsible for one of the revolution in Epistemology that will mark the history of philosophy. However, he also opened new paths in several central issues of philosophy, such as Metaphysics, Philosophy of Language and Philosophy of Mind. In 2020, the world philosophical community on all continents joined with his close friends and family to celebrate Ernie’s 80th birthday. Dozens of publications, books, journals, and webinars were held, even amidst the humanitarian devastation of the pandemic. The journal Trans/Form/Ação 1 Full Professor at the Philosophy Department of Federal University of Bahia (UFBA), Salvador, BA – Brazil. Researcher of the CNPq, Brazil. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0874-9599 E-mail: [email protected] 2 Editor da Trans/Form/Ação: Unesp journal of Philosophy. Professor at the Philosophy Department of and Coordinator of Post Graduation Program in Philosophy – São Paulo State University (UNESP), Marília, SP – Brazil.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Ethics
    p.1 Introduction to Ethics Place: TBD Time: TBD Instructor: Eric de Araujo Office: TBD Email: [email protected] Office Hours: TBD Texts & Materials An Introduction to Moral Philosophy (2018) by Jonathan Wolff. Readings in Moral Philosophy (2018) by Jonathan Wolff. Readings will come from the above text and anthology. Additional readings might be posted on Carmen. Bring either your textbook or appropriate readings to class. Course Description In this introduction to ethics will think about ethical issues like philosophers. First, we will learn how to reason morally and consider challenges to moral theorizing. Ten we will examine some major ethical theories along with some objections to them.Syllabus Once we understand these, we will discuss some ethical debates on particular topics. Course Goals & Objectives A. You will be able to articulate and evaluate major ethical theoriesAraujo by: Articulating main positions within ethical debates, identifying differences between ethical theories, presenting objections to ethical theories, applying ethical theories to cases, and communicating philosophical views to others. B. You will be able to comprehend and critique others' views by: Identifying the main conclusion ofde others' arguments, identifying the support given for a conclusion, evaluating the arguments of others, representing the logical structure of arguments, and determining what evidence is relevant to a conclusion. CourseC. You will be able to contribute to ethical debates by: Articulating main positions within ethical debates, applying ethical theories to cases, constructing an original argument, identifying the main conclusion of others' arguments,Eric identifying the support given for a conclusion, evaluating the arguments of p.2 others, distinguishing moral and non-moral questions, communicating philosophical views to others, and anticipating and defending views from objections.
    [Show full text]
  • Durkheim and Organizational Culture
    IRLE IRLE WORKING PAPER #108-04 June 2004 Durkheim and Organizational Culture James R. Lincoln and Didier Guillot Cite as: James R. Lincoln and Didier Guillot. (2004). “Durkheim and Organizational Culture.” IRLE Working Paper No. 108-04. http://irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/108-04.pdf irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers Durkheim and Organizational Culture James R. Lincoln Walter A. Haas School of Business University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 Didier Guillot INSEAD Singapore June , 2004 Prepared for inclusion in Marek Kocsynski, Randy Hodson, and Paul Edwards (editors): Social Theory at Work . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Durkheim and Organizational Culture “The degree of consensus over, and intensity of, cognitive orientations and regulative cultural codes among the members of a population is an inv erse function of the degree of structural differentiation among actors in this population and a positive, multiplicative function of their (a) rate of interpersonal interaction, (b) level of emotional arousal, and (c) rate of ritual performance. ” Durkheim’ s theory of culture as rendered axiomatically by Jonathan Turner (1990) Introduction This paper examines the significance of Emile Durkheim’s thought for organization theory , particular attention being given to the concept of organizational culture. We ar e not the first to take the project on —a number of scholars have usefully addressed the extent and relevance of this giant of Western social science for the study of organization and work. Even so, there is no denying that Durkheim’s name appears with vast ly less frequency in the literature on these topics than is true of Marx and W eber, sociology’ s other founding fathers .
    [Show full text]
  • Structuralism 1. the Nature of Meaning Or Understanding
    Structuralism 1. The nature of meaning or understanding. A. The role of structure as the system of relationships Something can only be understood (i.e., a meaning can be constructed) within a certain system of relationships (or structure). For example, a word which is a linguistic sign (something that stands for something else) can only be understood within a certain conventional system of signs, which is language, and not by itself (cf. the word / sound and “shark” in English and Arabic). A particular relationship within a شرق combination society (e.g., between a male offspring and his maternal uncle) can only be understood in the context of the whole system of kinship (e.g., matrilineal or patrilineal). Structuralism holds that, according to the human way of understanding things, particular elements have no absolute meaning or value: their meaning or value is relative to other elements. Everything makes sense only in relation to something else. An element cannot be perceived by itself. In order to understand a particular element we need to study the whole system of relationships or structure (this approach is also exactly the same as Malinowski’s: one cannot understand particular elements of culture out of the context of that culture). A particular element can only be studied as part of a greater structure. In fact, the only thing that can be studied is not particular elements or objects but relationships within a system. Our human world, so to speak, is made up of relationships, which make up permanent structures of the human mind. B. The role of oppositions / pairs of binary oppositions Structuralism holds that understanding can only happen if clearly defined or “significant” (= essential) differences are present which are called oppositions (or binary oppositions since they come in pairs).
    [Show full text]
  • A Positivist Route for Explaining How Facts Make Law
    Legal Theory, 18 (2012), 139–207. c Cambridge University Press 2012 0361-6843/12 $15.00 + 00 doi:10.1017/S1352325212000079 A POSITIVIST ROUTE FOR EXPLAINING HOW FACTS MAKE LAW David Plunkett* Dartmouth College In “How Facts Make Law” and other recent work, Mark Greenberg argues that legal positivists cannot develop a viable constitutive account of law that meets what he calls the “the rational-relation requirement.” He argues that this gives us reason to reject positivism in favor of antipositivism. In this paper, I argue that Greenberg is wrong: positivists can in fact develop a viable constitutive account of law that meets the rational-relation requirement. I make this argument in two stages. First, I offer an account of the rational-relation requirement. Second, I put forward a viable positivist account of law that I argue meets this requirement. The account that I propose is a version of Scott Shapiro’s Planning Theory of Law. The version of Shapiro’s account that I propose combines (1) the account of concepts and conceptual analysis put forward by David Chalmers and Frank Jackson with (2) the account of the concept LEGAL INSTITUTION (and its conceptual connections to the concept LEGAL NORM)that we get from a certain reading of Shapiro’s Planning Theory. In addition to providing a compelling response to Greenberg’s argument in “How Facts Make Law,” I argue ∗ This paper has benefited enormously from a wide range of conversations and written comments. My greatest debt is to Scott Shapiro, who has helped me develop my basic argument over the last number of years.
    [Show full text]
  • Law and the Metaethics of Discord
    Katja Maria Vogt, katjavogt.com, Columbia University 1 Law and the Metaethics of Discord, NYU Colloquium in Legal, Political, and Social Philosophy, Draft 08-2020 For: Special issue on the Normativity of Law, Ancient Philosophy Today: Dialogoi Law and the Metaethics of Discord Plato’s Euthyphro, I argue, lays out a metaethics that responds to persistent and unresolved value disagreement, and that is a genuine contender for us today. With this proposal, I reject centuries of scholarship, not to speak of countless anthologies and syllabi in ethics and the philosophy of law.1 The Euthyphro begins with three cases of unresolved value disagreement. These cases are to be adjudicated by the law, which turns out to be difficult. Today if an author starts with three examples, we expect that the subsequent text is going to address them. This, I submit, is the structure of the Euthyphro. Against my reading, discussions of the Euthyphro tend to focus almost exclusively on a brief section in which Plato discusses what is now known as the Euthyphro Problem. Socrates asks whether the gods love the pious because it is pious, or whether the pious is pious because it is loved by the gods. In the idiom of contemporary metaethics, the puzzle may seem to be this: is value attitude-independent or is value conferred by attitudes?2 Alternatively, in the idiom of traditional Divine Command Theory, do the gods —or, does God, since Divine Command Theory tends to be monotheistic—recognize value, or is value conferred by divine approval?3 1 Much of the literature on the Euthyphro focuses on two out of fifteen pages of the dialogue, where the so- called Euthyphro Problem is discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • VU Research Portal
    VU Research Portal Science and Scientism in Popular Science Writing de Ridder, G.J. published in Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2014 document version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in VU Research Portal citation for published version (APA) de Ridder, G. J. (2014). Science and Scientism in Popular Science Writing. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 3(12), 23-39. http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-1KE General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. E-mail address: [email protected] Download date: 02. Oct. 2021 Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 2014 Vol. 3, No. 12, 23-39. http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-1KE Science and Scientism in Popular Science Writing Jeroen de Ridder, VU University Amsterdam Abstract If one is to believe recent popular scientific accounts of developments in physics, biology, neuroscience, and cognitive science, most of the perennial philosophical questions have been wrested from the hands of philosophers by now, only to be resolved (or sometimes dissolved) by contemporary science.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Social Science
    Philosophy of Social Science Philosophy of Social Science A New Introduction Edited by Nancy Cartwright and Eleonora Montuschi 1 1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © The several contributors 2014 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2014 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2014938929 ISBN 978–0–19–964509–1 (hbk.) ISBN 978–0–19–964510–7 (pbk.) Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only.
    [Show full text]