Comments on: “The Fight for Science (and Justice)” (Part 2) http://publicreason.net/2009/05/04/the-fight-for-science-and-justice-part-2/ a blog for political philosophers Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:04:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Patrick S. O'Donnell http://publicreason.net/2009/05/04/the-fight-for-science-and-justice-part-2/#comment-1017 Patrick S. O'Donnell Tue, 19 May 2009 23:35:54 +0000 http://publicreason.net/2009/05/04/the-fight-for-science-and-justice-part-2/#comment-1017 I simply want to recommend a book that I've found quite useful for thinking about nos. 1 and 2 , namely, the late John Ziman's Real Science (2000). He nicely distinguishes between "academic" and "post-academic" science (the latter organized on market principles), detailing the (idealized) norms intrinsic to both (with some overlap of course, hence the 'post-'), as well as the power of governments and industrial corporations in the initiation of research projects and their sometime pernicious influence on the publication of results. Of course there's so much more covered in this book: the nature of scientific reasoning (a species of practical reasoning); the question of scientism, including the implausibility of a "theory of everything" (TOE); theories of science as "maps" idea/analogy/metaphor (cf. Kitcher's discussion of same); the role of heuristics, regulative principles, maxims, epistemic norms, principles of rationality and so forth; the dialectic between the need for "transdisciplinarity" with regard to "contexts of application," and the specialization and fragmentation of scientific fields; the vulnerability of scientists to the "demands of their paymasters".... Perhaps we could focus the discussion by finding a book or two by way of common background knowledge and then address some or all of the questions you raise here. I simply want to recommend a book that I’ve found quite useful for thinking about nos. 1 and 2 , namely, the late John Ziman’s Real Science (2000). He nicely distinguishes between “academic” and “post-academic” science (the latter organized on market principles), detailing the (idealized) norms intrinsic to both (with some overlap of course, hence the ‘post-’), as well as the power of governments and industrial corporations in the initiation of research projects and their sometime pernicious influence on the publication of results.

Of course there’s so much more covered in this book: the nature of scientific reasoning (a species of practical reasoning); the question of scientism, including the implausibility of a “theory of everything” (TOE); theories of science as “maps” idea/analogy/metaphor (cf. Kitcher’s discussion of same); the role of heuristics, regulative principles, maxims, epistemic norms, principles of rationality and so forth; the dialectic between the need for “transdisciplinarity” with regard to “contexts of application,” and the specialization and fragmentation of scientific fields; the vulnerability of scientists to the “demands of their paymasters”….

Perhaps we could focus the discussion by finding a book or two by way of common background knowledge and then address some or all of the questions you raise here.

]]>