Proliferation Update. Testing the Science and Technology Studies Mainstream Through Current Science’s Controversies

Pub Date : 2022-03-12 DOI:10.1177/00483931221081020
I. Kasavin, L. Shipovalova
{"title":"Proliferation Update. Testing the Science and Technology Studies Mainstream Through Current Science’s Controversies","authors":"I. Kasavin, L. Shipovalova","doi":"10.1177/00483931221081020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Disputes in the field of science and technology studies (STS) demonstrate its topicality as they elucidate the prospects for a postmodern world, and William Lynch in his book, in search of a constructive solution to current controversies, employs the dialectical approach of Lakatos and Feyerabend. Lynch takes a bold step to present an apparently “degenerated scientific research program” as a competitive alternative to the established and “progressive” mainstream. The book offers not only a theoretical justification for this “minority report,” but also its empirical confirmation, as well as the possibility of practical and socio-political application. We believe that Lynch’s book actualizes the discussion about the nature of sociality as related to scientific cognition, as well as provokes the question of the possibility of specific ontology of scientific knowledge. However, the internal heterogeneity of the sociology of scientific knowledge seems to be slightly underestimated, which sometimes prevents Lynch recognizing his real allies and opponents in modern STS. Lynch’s approach to analyzing scientific alternatives to dominant paradigms and to science communication practices helps problematize current controversies through demonstrating their incommensurability not incomparability. Hopefully this will increase their mutual understanding and collaboration.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00483931221081020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Disputes in the field of science and technology studies (STS) demonstrate its topicality as they elucidate the prospects for a postmodern world, and William Lynch in his book, in search of a constructive solution to current controversies, employs the dialectical approach of Lakatos and Feyerabend. Lynch takes a bold step to present an apparently “degenerated scientific research program” as a competitive alternative to the established and “progressive” mainstream. The book offers not only a theoretical justification for this “minority report,” but also its empirical confirmation, as well as the possibility of practical and socio-political application. We believe that Lynch’s book actualizes the discussion about the nature of sociality as related to scientific cognition, as well as provokes the question of the possibility of specific ontology of scientific knowledge. However, the internal heterogeneity of the sociology of scientific knowledge seems to be slightly underestimated, which sometimes prevents Lynch recognizing his real allies and opponents in modern STS. Lynch’s approach to analyzing scientific alternatives to dominant paradigms and to science communication practices helps problematize current controversies through demonstrating their incommensurability not incomparability. Hopefully this will increase their mutual understanding and collaboration.
分享
查看原文
增殖更新。从当前科学争议看科学技术研究主流
科学技术研究领域的争议在阐明后现代世界的前景时显示出其话题性,威廉·林奇在他的书中,为了寻求对当前争议的建设性解决方案,采用了拉卡托斯和费耶拉本德的辩证方法。林奇迈出了大胆的一步,提出了一个明显“退化的科学研究计划”,作为既定和“进步”主流的竞争替代方案。这本书不仅为这份“少数群体报告”提供了理论依据,还提供了其实证证实,以及实际和社会政治应用的可能性。我们认为,林奇的书实现了关于科学认知的社会性本质的讨论,并引发了科学知识特定本体论的可能性问题。然而,科学知识社会学的内部异质性似乎被低估了,这有时会阻碍林奇认识到他在现代STS中真正的盟友和对手。林奇分析主流范式和科学传播实践的科学替代品的方法,通过证明它们的不可通约性而非不可比性,有助于解决当前的争议。希望这将增进他们的相互理解和合作。
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
×
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