Descriptive Turn in Epistemology

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 27-33
Author(s):  
Natalia I. Kuznetsova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
History Of ◽  
Methodological Standard ◽  
The One ◽  
Professional History ◽  
Real Practice ◽  
Science Epistemology

The article shows that cultural-historical epistemology erroneously puts forward the thesis of a global crisis in the sphere of modern epistemology and philosophy of science. The key error of such a diagnosis is rooted in the confusion of basic concepts. In the development of epistemological studies, the period of the last decades of the twentieth century, which was called the “descriptive turn”, is very important. In the philosophy of science, the task was set to reflect the real practice of scientific research. This has been successfully carried out in a number of works by Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Latour and others. The task of building universal norms of scientific research has faded into the background. In this regard, the subjects of "methodology of science", on the one hand, and "epistemology" and "philosophy of science", on the other hand, were distinguished. The formulation of norms and standards for scientific research has become the task of methodology. Describing scientific practice, including scientific revolutions, has become the task of the professional history of science. The philosophical understanding of the processes of historical evolution, the identification of the laws of the development of science has become the subject of the philosophy of science. Epistemology, in turn, is called upon to consider the phenomenon of knowledge not only in science, but also more broadly – in a variety of historical and cultural contexts. In modern studies in the field of epistemology and philosophy of science, case studies are important, as they provide invaluable empirical material for philosophical generalizations. As for the construction of universal standards for scientific work, such a task, as Feyerabend showed, seems to be impossible. Moreover, the universal methodological standard does not allow discovering the uniqueness of scientific research situations.

scholarly journals Imagining Mechanisms with Diagrams

2019 ◽  
pp. 178-209
Author(s):  
Benjamin Sheredos ◽  
William Bechtel
Keyword(s):  
Circadian Rhythms ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Philosophical Analysis ◽  
Hypothetical Mechanism ◽  
Scientific Endeavor ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Circadian Biology

Philosophy of science has long focused on how scientists achieve successful explanations of a phenomenon. But much of scientific work is aimed at something more basic: successfully and coherently imagining how a phenomenon might be explained—for example, hypothesizing a mechanism that could possibly produce the phenomenon. This chapter examines the graphics and diagrams that scientists in the field of circadian biology have generated and used to externalize and stabilize their imaginative reasoning. In particular, it examines how scientists revise their graphics as they sharpen and constrain their imaginative construal of a hypothetical mechanism. This analysis examines published diagrams that reflect the community’s developing understanding of the mechanism responsible for circadian rhythms in cyanobacteria and zeroes in on unpublished graphics from a single lab as they developed one operation in the mechanism. The goal is to understand how circadian biologists rely on graphics to overcome the difficulties of imagining the complex working of hypothetical mechanisms over time. Throughout, the chapter emphasizes that pursuing imaginative success is a scientific endeavor governed by its own internal norms, distinct from the norms of successful explanation. The aim is to direct philosophical analysis to scientists’ imaginings and to encourage integrating this understudied dimension of scientific practice with traditional philosophical analysis of normativity in scientific practice.

scholarly journals Metadata accounts: Achieving data and evidence in scientific research

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. 732-757 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew S Mayernik
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Sociology Of Science ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Work Processes ◽  
Social Situations ◽  
Essential Components ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Sociological Studies ◽  
Insight Into

‘Metadata’ has received a fraction of the attention that ‘data’ has received in sociological studies of scientific research. A neglect of ‘metadata’ reduces the attention on a number of critical aspects of scientific work processes, including documentary work, accountability relations, and collaboration routines. Metadata processes and products are essential components of the work needed to practically accomplish day-to-day scientific research tasks, and are central to ensuring that research findings and products meet externally driven standards or requirements. This article is an attempt to open up the discussion on and conceptualization of metadata within the sociology of science and the sociology of data. It presents ethnographic research of metadata creation within everyday scientific practice, focusing on how researchers document, describe, annotate, organize and manage their data, both for their own use and the use of researchers outside of their project. In particular, this article argues that the role and significance of metadata within scientific research contexts are intimately tied to the nature of evidence and accountability within particular social situations. Studying metadata can (1) provide insight into the production of evidence, that is, how something we might call ‘data’ becomes able to serve an evidentiary role, and (2) provide a mechanism for revealing what people in research contexts are held accountable for, and what they achieve accountability with.

scholarly journals Fossils with Feathers and Philosophy of Science

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (5) ◽  
pp. 840-851 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joyce C Havstad ◽  
N Adam Smith
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Thomas Kuhn ◽  
Karl Popper ◽  
Scientific Debate ◽  
Evolutionary Origins ◽  
Research Programmes ◽  
History Of

AbstractThe last half century of paleornithological research has transformed the way that biologists perceive the evolutionary history of birds. This transformation has been driven, since 1969, by a series of exciting fossil discoveries combined with intense scientific debate over how best to interpret these discoveries. Ideally, as evidence accrues and results accumulate, interpretive scientific agreement forms. But this has not entirely happened in the debate over avian origins: the accumulation of scientific evidence and analyses has had some effect, but not a conclusive one, in terms of resolving the question of avian origins. Although the majority of biologists have come to accept that birds are dinosaurs, there is lingering and, in some quarters, strident opposition to this view. In order to both understand the ongoing disagreement about avian origins and generate a prediction about the future of the debate, here we use a revised model of scientific practice to assess the current and historical state of play surrounding the topic of bird evolutionary origins. Many scientists are familiar with the metascientific scholars Sir Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, and these are the primary figures that have been appealed to so far, in prior attempts to assess the dispute. But we demonstrate that a variation of Imre Lakatos’s model of progressive versus degenerative research programmes provides a novel and productive assessment of the debate. We establish that a refurbished Lakatosian account both explains the intractability of the dispute and predicts a likely outcome for the debate about avian origins. In short, here, we offer a metascientific tool for rationally assessing competing theories—one that allows researchers involved in seemingly intractable scientific disputes to advance their debates.

Some Remarks on the Logic of Explanation in the Social Sciences

1970 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 64-81
Author(s):  
Albrecht Wellmer
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Scientific Explanation ◽  
The Other ◽  
Analytical Philosophy ◽  
Practical Consequence ◽  
The Social ◽  
History Of ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual

If one were to write a history of the philosophy of science in the spirit of T. S. Kuhn, one would have to consider the model of scientific explanation which Popper proposed and Hempel and Oppenheim developed to be one of the great paradigms of contemporary analytical philosophy of science. This analogue to the historically important paradigms of the individual sciences seems to me to be justifiable for the following reasons: first, the Hempel—Oppenheim model (or HO-model, as I shall call it) claims universal methodological validity; second, discussions on the problem of explanation have centred on this model for some time; third, the recent cognitive progress in this field has been largely the result of the interrelation between criticism of this model on the one hand and its improvement and explication on the other hand; and lastly, this model stands for a particular comprehension of the problems and possibilities of science, a concept of quite important practical consequence.

Voronezh experimental station for perennial herbs — 100 years: the main results and prospects of work

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir Kosolapov ◽  
Sergey Saprykin ◽  
Iosif Ivanov ◽  
Anna Chekmareva
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Research ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
100Th Anniversary ◽  
Perennial Grasses ◽  
Experimental Station ◽  
History Of ◽  
Perennial Herbs

In 2020, the Voronezh experimental station for perennial grasses will celebrate its 100th anniversary. The article presents the history of the station's creation, its achievements, and shows the role of well-known agricultural scientists who took part in the establishment of the station and the organization of scientific work. The stages and directions of scientific research in different periods are highlighted.

THE MULTIAGENT TECHNOLOGY AND PARADIGM WITHIN SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY

2007 ◽  
Vol 16 (02) ◽  
pp. 219-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
FRANCESCO AMIGONI ◽  
VIOLA SCHIAFFONATI
Keyword(s):  
Computer Science ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Multiagent Systems ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
The Other ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Scientific Results ◽  
The One

Scientific practice has been rapidly evolving in the last years under the pressure of developments in computer science and technology. In this paper we present some of the results of our research activity at the boundary between computer science and philosophy of science started in 1997 under Marco Somalvico's impulse and guidance. In particular, we discuss two roles that multiagent systems can play in scientific discovery. From the one hand, they can support scientific practice; from the other hand, they can represent scientific results. The theoretical framework presented in this paper is exemplified in concrete by illustrating specific implemented systems, both taken from the literature and developed by ourselves.

scholarly journals “We All Need Your Dictionary”: Letters to Sergey Ozhegov of the 1940s–1960s (To the 120th Anniversary of the Birth of the Scholar)

2020 ◽  
pp. 133-149
Author(s):  
Oleg V. Nikitin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Source Analysis ◽  
Scientific Biography ◽  
Archival Documents ◽  
Editorial Work ◽  
History Of ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
The One ◽  
General Linguistic

The publication presents previously unknown letters to Sergey Ozhegov of the late 1940s – early 1960s, which reveal facts of his scientific biography. The aim of this work is to introduce into scientific discourse rare archival documents on the history of Russian linguistics, and also to study linguistic polemics in the USSR in the era of the onslaught of the Marrism of the end of the 1940s. The main methods of studying the material are historical-linguistic, lexicographic, sociolinguistic and linguistic source analysis (search, decoding and commenting on archival texts). In the course of the research of documentary materials, the author has revealed new facts testifying to the change of a vector of scientific views on explanatory lexicography as a whole which, unlike the previous dictionary projects, was not adapted to academic needs, and first of all solved practical problems of explaining the actual lexicon of the 20th century. The article notes that one of the key issues of the dictionary work of that time was the interpretation of Sovietisms, on the one hand, and religious words and expressions, on the other. The archaic vocabulary (“merchant” and church elements) became the object of fierce criticism of Ozhegov’s opponents. Scholars and non-philological readers, polemicizing with Ozhegov, paid special attention to reviews and analysis of semantic, stylistic and cultural-historical realities of dictionary entries. Ozhegov’s respondents also discussed the difficult fate of the dictionary. The published letters contain semi-official reviews from both famous scholars (A.P. Evgenieva, Ya.M. Endzelin, R.R. Gel’gardt, J.V. Loja) and ordinary readers of The Dictionary, they reveal Ozhegov as a person of special gift loving his native language. These letters provide valuable material for the analysis of linguistic homeland studies of the period of struggle between the two ideologies in science. The letters reveal new facts of Ozhegov’s editorial work, discuss the criticism of the publication in the press, note its strengths and weaknesses. The article emphasizes the sociocultural aspect of Ozhegov’s interpretations and the ambiguity of their perception by contemporaries. The Dictionary is included in the context of general linguistic ideas by D.N. Ushakov and L.V. Shcherba. The high pedagogical value of this source is indicated. The published archival materials confirm a unique fact in the scientific practice of the mid-20th century: the emergence of a popular explanatory dictionary reflecting the cultural constants of the time and serving as a reliable tool for self-education. The article is of interest to historiographers of science, lexicologists and lexicographers, linguaculturologists, sociolinguists.

scholarly journals On the first scientific work of E.N. Shveykovskaya

2021 ◽  
pp. 129-134
Author(s):  
Nikita A. Komochev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Research Methods ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Historical Source ◽  
Source Studies ◽  
History Of ◽  
High Level

The article is devoted to the student’s thesis about the articles of K.S. Petrov-Vodkin as a historical source written by E.N. Baklanova (Shveykovskaya) at the Moskow State Institut for History and Archives under the supervision of S.O. Schmidt. This study shows a high level of proficiency in source studies, textology, archeography. Scientific research methods were then continued and developed in the works of E.N. Shveykovskaya, dedicated to the history of the peasantry and agrarian history.

scholarly journals Simplicity of what? A case study from generative linguistics

Synthese ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulia Terzian ◽  
María Inés Corbalán
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Interesting Case ◽  
Minimalist Program ◽  
The Other ◽  
Language Faculty ◽  
Generative Linguistics ◽  
To Come ◽  
The One

Abstract The Minimalist Program in generative linguistics is predicated on the idea that simplicity is a defining property of the human language faculty, on the one hand; on the other, a central aim of linguistic theorising. Worryingly, however, justifications for either claim are hard to come by in the literature. We sketch a proposal that would allow for both shortcomings to be addressed, and that furthermore honours the program’s declared commitment to naturalism. We begin by teasing apart and clarifying the different conceptions of simplicity underlying generative inquiry, in both ontological and theoretical capacities. We then trace a path towards a more robust justification for each type of simplicity principle, drawing on recent work in cognitive science and in philosophy of science, respectively. The resulting proposal hinges on the idea that simplicity is an evolved, virtuous cognitive bias—one that is a condition of our scientific understanding and, ultimately, of successful scientific practice. Finally, we make a case for why minimalists should take this proposal seriously, on the one hand; and for why generative linguistics would make for an interesting case study for philosophy of science, on the other.

scholarly journals Iconoclasm and Imagination: Gaston Bachelard’s Philosophy of Technoscience

Human Studies ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hub Zwart
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Gaston Bachelard ◽  
Unique Position ◽  
Contemporary Science ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
History Of ◽  
Epistemological Obstacle ◽  
Mother Earth

Abstract Gaston Bachelard (1884–1962) occupies a unique position in the history of European thinking. As a philosopher of science, he developed a profound interest in genres of the imagination, notably poetry and novels. While emphatically acknowledging the strength, precision and reliability of scientific knowledge compared to every-day experience, he saw literary phantasies as important supplementary sources of insight. Although he significantly influenced authors such as Lacan, Althusser, Foucault and others, while some of his key concepts (“epistemological rupture,” “epistemological obstacle,” “technoscience”) are still widely used, his oeuvre tends to be overlooked. And yet, as I will argue, Bachelard’s extended series of books opens up an intriguing perspective on contemporary science. First, I will point to a remarkable duality that runs through Bachelard’s oeuvre. His philosophy of science consists of two sub-oeuvres: a psychoanalysis of technoscience, complemented by a poetics of elementary imagination. I will point out how these two branches deal with complementary themes: technoscientific artefacts and literary fictions, two realms of human experience separated by an epistemological rupture. Whereas Bachelard’s work initially entails a panegyric in praise of scientific practice, he becomes increasingly intrigued by the imaginary and its basic images (“archetypes”), such as the Mother Earth archetype.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document