Evolving Realities: Scientific Prediction and Objectivity from the Perspective of Historical Epistemology

Historical epistemology is a form of intellectual history focused on “the history of categories that structure our thought, pattern our arguments and proofs, and certify our standards for explanation” (Lorraine Daston). Under this umbrella, historians have been studying the changing meanings of “objectivity,” “impartiality,” “curiosity,” and other virtues believed to be conducive to good scholarship. While endorsing this historicization of virtues and their corresponding vices, the present article argues that the meaning and relative importance of these virtues and vices can only be determined if their mutual dependencies are taken into account. Drawing on a detailed case study—a controversy that erupted among nineteenth-century orientalists over the publication of R. P. A. Dozy'sDe Israëlieten te Mekka(The Israelites in Mecca) (1864)—the paper shows that nineteenth-century orientalists were careful to examine (1) the degree to which Dozy practiced the virtues they considered most important, (2) the extent to which these virtues were kept in balance by other ones, (3) the extent to which these virtues were balanced by other scholars’ virtues, and (4) the extent to which they were expected to be balanced by future scholars’ work. Consequently, this article argues that historical epistemology might want to abandon its single-virtue focus in order to allow balances, hierarchies, and other dependency relations between virtues and vices to move to the center of attention.

Download Full-text

Historical Epistemology as Disability Studies Methodology: From the Models Framework to Foucault’s Archaeology of Cure

Foucault Studies ◽

10.22439/fs.v0i19.4827 ◽

2015 ◽

pp. 108-134 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Aimi Hamraie

Keyword(s):

Disability Studies ◽

Biomedical Knowledge ◽

Historical Epistemology ◽

Critical Disability Studies ◽

Medical Authority ◽

Disability History ◽

Models Of Disability ◽

The Social ◽

History Of ◽

Construction Of Disability

In this article, I argue for historical epistemology as a methodology for critical disability studies (DS) by examining Foucault’s archaeology of cure in History of Madness. Although the moral, medical, and social models of disability frame disability history as an advancement upon moral and medical authority and a replacement of it by sociopolitical knowledge, I argue that the more comprehensive frame in which these models circulate—the “models framework”—requires the more nuanced approach that historical epistemology offers. In particular, the models framework requires greater use of epistemology as an analytical tool for understanding the historical construction of disability. Thus, I turn to Foucault’s History of Madness in order to both excavate one particular archaeological strand in the text—the archaeology of cure—and to demonstrate how this narrative disrupts some of the key assumptions of the models framework, challenging DS to consider the epistemological force of non-medical fields of knowledge for framing disability and procedures for its cure and elimination. I conclude by arguing that DS must develop historical epistemological methodologies that are sensitive to the complex overlays of moral, medical, and social knowledge, as well as attend to the social construction of scientific and biomedical knowledge itself.

Download Full-text

Scientific Prediction of the Covid-19 Pandemic and What Should Society Do?

Review of Primary Care Practice and Education (Kajian Praktik dan Pendidikan Layanan Primer) ◽

10.22146/rpcpe.57577 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 3 (3) ◽

pp. 22

Author(s):

Iche Andriyani Liberty ◽

Mariatul Fadilah ◽

Hari Kusnanto Josef

Keyword(s):

Predictive Modeling ◽

Basic Reproduction Number ◽

Reproduction Number ◽

Scientific Prediction ◽

The Basic Reproduction Number ◽

Three Components

What is the scientific prediction for the Covid-19 pandemic? Currently, as of April 8, the world’s confirmed cases have over 1.2 million, the death of more than 72 thousand. For Indonesia, today 2,738 confirmed cases, 221 deaths, and those who recovered 204.1-3. The update on April 8 today, WHO itself estimates that the Covid-19 Contagion Rate is 1.4 to 2.5. This will form the basis of predictive modeling. Several studies conducted show that currently the basic reproduction number or R0 of Covid-19 is higher than SARS. Initially in the range of 2-3 or an average of 2.5, currently R0 is 1.4 - 6.9. This is what will form the basis of modeling. R0 or the basic reproduction number shows how many people a person can become infected with. If the R0 is more than 1, we are in an epidemic status as it is today, R0 = 1 endemic, and our R0 is less than 1 we have eradicated. R0 itself consists of three components, namely p: transmission, c: number of contact, and D which is the duration of the infection itself. These calculations are the main points in modeling.

Download Full-text