Merton-Popper’s paradox and the substantive rationality of science

Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 55 (2):49-52 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The author discusses the meaning of the paradox, which rises as a result of the controversy between the principles of scientific ethos (R. Merton) and fallibilism (K. Popper). She argues that the justification of the moral authority of science should not depend on this paradox. The author uses Max Weber’s concept of substantive rationality to consider the idea of social legitimation of science. She argues for understanding expertise as a special mode of scientific knowledge which aims at justifying the authority of science in the society.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,031

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

How Is Post-Normal Science Possible?Lada V. Shipovalova - 2022 - Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 59 (3):61-73.
What does it mean ‘to know’? [REVIEW]Elena A. Mamchur - 2017 - Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 54 (4):225-233.
On the Alleged Contradiction in Scientific Rationality.Liana A. Tukhvatulina - 2019 - Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 56 (3):51-55.
Rationality in law.Liana A. Tukhvatulina - 2017 - Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 54 (4):175-190.
Scientific activism and the idea of performativity.Olga E. Stoliarova - 2018 - Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 55 (2):42-48.
Contextualism in philosophy of science.Vladimir N. Porus - 2018 - Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 55 (2):75-93.
The conception of "trading zones" as a new kind of soft externalism.Yuri K. Volkov - 2017 - Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 54 (4):44-46.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-05-16

Downloads
19 (#824,913)

6 months
9 (#355,594)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references