Scientific imperialism and the proper relations between the sciences

John Dupr argues that 'scientific imperialism' can result in 'misguided' science being considered acceptable. 'Misguided' is an explicitly normative term and the use of the pejorative 'imperialistic' is implicitly normative. However, Dupr has not justified the normative dimension of his critique. We identify two ways in which it might be justified. It might be justified if colonisation prevents a discipline from progressing in ways that it might otherwise progress. It might also be justified if colonisation prevents the expression of important values in the colonised discipline. This second concern seems most pressing in the human sciences.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/02698590903007170
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 15,974
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

View all 21 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Ian James Kidd (2013). Historical Contingency and the Impact of Scientific Imperialism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 27 (3):317–326.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

44 ( #76,056 of 1,725,833 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #268,271 of 1,725,833 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.