完全不同种类的野兽:民族生物学知识整合面临的本体论挑战

IF 0.6 1区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS
Dejan Makovec
{"title":"完全不同种类的野兽:民族生物学知识整合面临的本体论挑战","authors":"Dejan Makovec","doi":"10.1177/00483931231216773","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Anthropologists of the ontological turn claim that certain entities, processes, and relations are in principle inaccessible to outsiders of specific communities. Philosophers of ethnobiology see a challenge to the integration of scientific and ethnoscientific knowledge of nature in this claim. They propose to negotiate integration within a framework of overlapping ontologies. I explicate the methodology of the ontological turn and claim that it offers a better understanding of knowledge integration than does the philosophers’ framework. Based on two case studies, I argue for a revised notion of knowledge integration that takes scientific change and mutual influence between communities into account.","PeriodicalId":46776,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of the Social Sciences","volume":"7 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Entirely Different Kinds of Beast: The Ontological Challenge to Knowledge Integration in Ethnobiology\",\"authors\":\"Dejan Makovec\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00483931231216773\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Anthropologists of the ontological turn claim that certain entities, processes, and relations are in principle inaccessible to outsiders of specific communities. Philosophers of ethnobiology see a challenge to the integration of scientific and ethnoscientific knowledge of nature in this claim. They propose to negotiate integration within a framework of overlapping ontologies. I explicate the methodology of the ontological turn and claim that it offers a better understanding of knowledge integration than does the philosophers’ framework. Based on two case studies, I argue for a revised notion of knowledge integration that takes scientific change and mutual influence between communities into account.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46776,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy of the Social Sciences\",\"volume\":\"7 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy of the Social Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00483931231216773\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of the Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00483931231216773","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本体论转向的人类学家声称,某些实体、过程和关系原则上是特定社群的外人所无法触及的。民族生物学哲学家从这一主张中看到了整合自然科学知识和民族科学知识的挑战。他们建议在重叠的本体论框架内协商整合问题。我阐述了本体论转向的方法论,并声称与哲学家的框架相比,本体论转向提供了对知识整合的更好理解。在两个案例研究的基础上,我主张对知识整合的概念进行修订,将科学变革和社群之间的相互影响考虑在内。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Entirely Different Kinds of Beast: The Ontological Challenge to Knowledge Integration in Ethnobiology
Anthropologists of the ontological turn claim that certain entities, processes, and relations are in principle inaccessible to outsiders of specific communities. Philosophers of ethnobiology see a challenge to the integration of scientific and ethnoscientific knowledge of nature in this claim. They propose to negotiate integration within a framework of overlapping ontologies. I explicate the methodology of the ontological turn and claim that it offers a better understanding of knowledge integration than does the philosophers’ framework. Based on two case studies, I argue for a revised notion of knowledge integration that takes scientific change and mutual influence between communities into account.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: For more than four decades Philosophy of the Social Sciences has served as the international, interdisciplinary forum for current research, theory and debate on the philosophical foundations of the social services. Philosophy of the Social Sciences focuses on the central issues of the social sciences, including general methodology (explaining, theorizing, testing) the application of philosophy (especially individualism versus holism), the nature of rationality and the history of theories and concepts. Among the topics you''ll explore are: ethnomethodology, evolution, Marxism, phenomenology, postmodernism, rationality, relativism, scientific methods, and textual interpretations. Philosophy of the Social Sciences'' open editorial policy ensures that you''ll enjoy rigorous scholarship on topics viewed from many different-- and often conflicting-- schools of thought. No school, party or style of philosophy of the social sciences is favoured. Debate between schools is encouraged. Each issue presents submissions by distinguished scholars from a variety of fields, including: anthropology, communications, economics, history, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, and sociology. Each issue brings you in-depth discussions, symposia, literature surveys, translations, and review symposia of interest both to philosophyers concerned with the social sciences and to social scientists concerned with the philosophical foundations of their subjects.
×
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