Meeting the challenges to socially responsible science: reply to Brown, Lacey, and Potter

Philosophical Studies 163 (1):93-103 (2013)

Abstract

The main message of Philosophy of Science after Feminism is twofold: that philosophy of science needs to locate science within its wider societal context, ceasing to analyze science as if it existed in a social/political/economic vacuum; and correlatively, that philosophy of science needs to aim for an understanding of scientific rationality that is appropriate to that context, a scientific rationality that integrates the ethical with the epistemic. The ideal of socially responsible science that the book puts forward, in fact, maintains that sound social values as well as sound epistemic values must control every aspect of the scientific research process, from the choice of research questions to the communication and application of results. And it is this that raises troubling questions for Matt Brown, Hugh Lacey, and Libby Potter. In this paper I attempt to answer their questions and make explicit exactly what is in the offing if I succeed

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,660

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-01-01

Downloads
94 (#127,345)

6 months
3 (#198,972)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Similar books and articles

Rehabilitating Neutrality.Hugh Lacey - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 163 (1):77-83.
Economic Values in the Configuration of Science.Wenceslao J. González - 2008 - Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 96 (1):85-112.
A Successor to the Realism/Antirealism Question.Janet A. Kourany - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (3):101.
Methodological Norms in Traditional and Feminist Philosophy of Science.Elizabeth Potter - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:101 - 108.
Why Science Cannot Be Value-Free.Agnieszka Lekka-Kowalik - 2010 - Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (1):33-41.
Consensus and Evolution in Science.Gonzalo Munevar - 1986 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:120 - 129.
Socially Responsible Science and the Unity of Values.Miriam Solomon - 2012 - Perspectives on Science 20 (3):331-338.
Biological Science and Feminist Values.Michael Ruse - 1984 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:525 - 542.

Author's Profile

Janet Kourany
University of Notre Dame

References found in this work

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas Samuel Kuhn - 1962 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas S. Kuhn - 1962 - University of Chicago Press.
Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge.Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.) - 1970 - Cambridge University Press.
Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.Imre Lakatos - 1970 - In Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press. pp. 91-196.

View all 17 references / Add more references