Graduate studies at Western
Inquiry 23 (1):3 – 18 (1980)
|Abstract||Scientific standards cannot be separated from the practice of science and their use presupposes immersion in this practice. The demand to base political action on scientific standards therefore leads to elitism. Democratic relativism, on the other hand, demands equal rights for all traditions or, conversely, a separation between the state and any one of the traditions it contains; for example, it demands the separation of state and science, state and humanitarianism, state and Christianity. Democratic relativism defends the rights of people to live as they see fit; it is also a most efficient means of probing traditions (such as ?scientific? medicine) that happen to be in the centre of attention: it has ethical as well as epistemological advantages|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Steven Yates (1984). II. Feyerabend's Democratic Relativism. Inquiry 27 (1-4):137-142.
David Guston (1993). The Essential Tension in Science and Democracy. Social Epistemology 7 (1):3 – 23.
Jonathan Y. Tsou (2003). Reconsidering Feyerabend's 'Anarchism'. Perspectives on Science 11 (2):208-235.
Gerald Doppelt (1978). Kuhn's Epistemological Relativism: An Interpretation and Defense. Inquiry 21 (1-4):33 – 86.
Howard Sankey (2000). Methodological Pluralism, Normative Naturalism and the Realist Aim of Science. In Howard Sankey & Robert Nola (eds.), After Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend: Recent Issues in Theories of Scientific Method.
Philip Kitcher (2008). Science, Religion, and Democracy. Episteme 5 (1):pp. 5-18.
Howard P. Kainz (1991). Democracy and the Church-State Relationship. Philosophy and Theology 5 (3):251-258.
Added to index2009-01-30
Total downloads49 ( #25,884 of 739,360 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #26,423 of 739,360 )
How can I increase my downloads?