Science is neither sacred nor a confidence trick

Foundations of Science 1 (3):323-335 (1995)

Susan Haack
University of Miami
The Old Deferentialism, taking science to enjoy a privileged epistemic standing because of its uniquely rational and objective method, is over-optimistic. But there is no need to conclude, like the New Cynics, that appeals to evidence, rationality, objectivity are mere rhetorical bullying. A new theory of scientific method and knowledge is developed, which combines logical and social elements, and reveals science to be not epistemologically privileged, but epistemologically distinguished.
Keywords epistomology   evidence   scientific method   objectivity   social constructivism
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF00145401
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 43,865
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

Fact, Fiction and Forecast.NELSON GOODMAN - 1955 - Harvard University Press.
Against Method.Paul Feyerabend - 1975 - London: New Left Books.
Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?Sandra Harding - 1991 - Cornell University Press.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Reflection on Reflective Equilibrium.Robert C. Cummins - 1998 - In Michael DePaul & William Ramsey (eds.), Rethinking Intuition. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 113-128.
Scientific Objectivity and the Logics of Science.H. E. Longino - 1983 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 26 (1):85 – 106.
Kuhn Vs. Popper on Criticism and Dogmatism in Science: A Resolution at the Group Level.Darrell Patrick Rowbottom - 2011 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42 (1):117-124.
What Evidence Do You Have?Ram Neta - 2008 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (1):89-119.


Added to PP index

Total views
48 ( #173,102 of 2,266,099 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #601,470 of 2,266,099 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature