Evolution of the Ethos of Science: From the Representationalist to the Interventionist Approach to Science

IF 0.9 4区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Marek Sikora
{"title":"Evolution of the Ethos of Science: From the Representationalist to the Interventionist Approach to Science","authors":"Marek Sikora","doi":"10.1007/s10699-024-09969-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The article is an exploration into the problem of the ethos of modern science viewed from the representationalist and interventionist perspectives. The representationalist account of science is associated with the position of theoreticism, while the interventionist account pertains to the concept of new experimentalism. The former of these approaches is dominated by the ethos of science which Robert K. Merton defined as comprising four sets of institutional imperatives referred to as ‘Mertonian norms’: universalism, communitarism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism. In the latter approach, the concept of ethos is far more intricate. It can be described as a hybrid mix of elements derived from Mertonian norms and some constituents from the area of science that John Ziman calls “industrial science”. This article compares the two types of ethos, highlighting the need to identify and investigate nuances in the ethos embraced by individual disciplines within the area of the interventionist approach to science. It is argued that the need can be attributed to the escalating process of substituting the ideal of value-free science for the ideal of value-laden science. The phenomenon is especially evident in the field of laboratory sciences, as exemplified by the research conducted on synthetic mRNA technology. The author also draws attention to the problem of the social responsibility of disciplines from the interventionist approach to science.</p>","PeriodicalId":55146,"journal":{"name":"Foundations of Science","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foundations of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-024-09969-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article is an exploration into the problem of the ethos of modern science viewed from the representationalist and interventionist perspectives. The representationalist account of science is associated with the position of theoreticism, while the interventionist account pertains to the concept of new experimentalism. The former of these approaches is dominated by the ethos of science which Robert K. Merton defined as comprising four sets of institutional imperatives referred to as ‘Mertonian norms’: universalism, communitarism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism. In the latter approach, the concept of ethos is far more intricate. It can be described as a hybrid mix of elements derived from Mertonian norms and some constituents from the area of science that John Ziman calls “industrial science”. This article compares the two types of ethos, highlighting the need to identify and investigate nuances in the ethos embraced by individual disciplines within the area of the interventionist approach to science. It is argued that the need can be attributed to the escalating process of substituting the ideal of value-free science for the ideal of value-laden science. The phenomenon is especially evident in the field of laboratory sciences, as exemplified by the research conducted on synthetic mRNA technology. The author also draws attention to the problem of the social responsibility of disciplines from the interventionist approach to science.

科学伦理的演变:从科学的表象主义到干预主义方法
本文从表征主义和干涉主义的角度探讨了现代科学的精神问题。表征主义对科学的描述与理论主义的立场有关,而干涉主义的描述与新实验主义的概念有关。前一种方法由罗伯特·k·默顿(Robert K. Merton)定义的科学精神主导,科学精神由四套被称为“默顿规范”的制度要求组成:普遍主义、社群主义、无私和有组织的怀疑主义。在后一种方法中,精神的概念要复杂得多。它可以被描述为来自默顿规范的元素和来自约翰·齐曼称之为“工业科学”的科学领域的一些成分的混合。本文比较了这两种类型的精神,强调需要识别和调查在干预主义科学方法领域内各个学科所接受的精神的细微差别。本文认为,这种需要可归因于价值自由的科学理想取代价值承载的科学理想的升级过程。这种现象在实验室科学领域尤为明显,对合成mRNA技术的研究就是例证。作者还从干涉主义的科学观出发,提出了学科的社会责任问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Foundations of Science
Foundations of Science HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: Foundations of Science focuses on methodological and philosophical topics of foundational significance concerning the structure and the growth of science. It serves as a forum for exchange of views and ideas among working scientists and theorists of science and it seeks to promote interdisciplinary cooperation. Since the various scientific disciplines have become so specialized and inaccessible to workers in different areas of science, one of the goals of the journal is to present the foundational issues of science in a way that is free from unnecessary technicalities yet faithful to the scientific content. The aim of the journal is not simply to identify and highlight foundational issues and problems, but to suggest constructive solutions to the problems. The editors of the journal admit that various sciences have approaches and methods that are peculiar to those individual sciences. However, they hold the view that important truths can be discovered about and by the sciences and that truths transcend cultural and political contexts. Although properly conducted historical and sociological inquiries can explain some aspects of the scientific enterprise, the editors believe that the central foundational questions of contemporary science can be posed and answered without recourse to sociological or historical methods.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信