“Once upon a time” philosophy of science: Sts, science policy and the semantic view of scientific theories [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Axiomathes 19 (4):465-480 (2009)
Is a policy-friendly philosophy of science possible? In order to respond this question, I consider a particular instance of contemporary philosophy of science, the semantic view of scientific theories, by placing it in the broader methodological landscape of the integration of philosophy of science into STS (Science and Technology Studies) as a component of the overall contribution of the latter to science policy. In that context, I defend a multi-disciplinary methodological integration of the special discipline composing STS against a reductionist interdisciplinary unification, arguing that if STS wants to contribute to policy advising by constructing narratives of science practice feasible for science policy both in terms of descriptive completeness and intelligibility, then it must avoid the explanatory reductionism tendencies of special disciplines in interdisciplinary contexts. This would favour, at the same time, a relaxation of esoteric language. On this basis, it seems that the semantic view is one right candidate among other approaches in the philosophy of science for facilitating the integration of the methodologically different contributions to STS toward policy objectives. In fact, besides offering a more realistic and descriptively complete picture of science practice with respect to its predecessor in the philosophy of science, namely the syntactic view, the semantic view is also able to capture some aspects of science practice that elude even sociological approaches to STS, thus inviting different perspective on the same subject matter.
|Keywords||Interdisciplinarity Multidisciplinarity Philosophy of science Semantic view Science and technology studies Science policy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
David Bloor (1991). Knowledge and Social Imagery. University of Chicago Press.
Rudolf Carnap (1966). Philosophical Foundations of Physics;. New York,Basic Books, Inc..
Rudolph Carnap (1963). Carl G. Hempel on Scientific Theories. In Paul Arthur Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. La Salle, Ill.,Open Court. 958--966.
Nancy Cartwright (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Penny J. Gilmer (1995). Teaching Science at the University Level: What About the Ethics? Science and Engineering Ethics 1 (2):173-180.
Wenda K. Bauchspies (2006). Science, Technology, and Society: A Sociological Approach. Blackwell Pub..
Hans Halvorson (2012). What Scientific Theories Could Not Be. Philosophy of Science 79 (2):183-206.
Ellsworth R. Fuhrman (1999). STS and Utopian Thinking. Social Epistemology 13 (1):85 – 93.
Charles Thorpe (2010). Participation as Post-Fordist Politics: Demos, New Labour, and Science Policy. [REVIEW] Minerva 48 (4):389-411.
Stephen M. Downes (1992). The Importance of Models in Theorizing: A Deflationary Semantic View. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:142 - 153.
Donald T. Campbell (1984). Science Policy From a Naturalistic Sociological Epistemology. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:14 - 29.
Heather Douglas (2005). Boundaries Between Science and Policy. Environmental Philosophy 2 (1):14-29.
Chuang Liu (1997). Models and Theories I: The Semantic View Revisited. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 11 (2):147 – 164.
Added to index2009-10-03
Total downloads12 ( #129,983 of 1,102,744 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #46,741 of 1,102,744 )
How can I increase my downloads?