|
Showing 1 - 4 of
4 matches in All Departments
All too often in contemporary discourse, we hear about science
overstepping its proper limits about its brazenness, arrogance, and
intellectual imperialism. The problem, critics say, is scientism:
the privileging of science over all other ways of knowing. Science,
they warn, cannot do or explain everything, no matter what some
enthusiasts believe. In Science Unlimited?, noted philosophers of
science Maarten Boudry and Massimo Pigliucci gather a diverse group
of scientists, science communicators, and philosophers of science
to explore the limits of science and this alleged threat of
scientism. In this wide-ranging collection, contributors ask
whether the term scientism in fact (or in belief) captures an
interesting and important intellectual stance, and whether it is
something that should alarm us. Is scientism a well-developed
position about the superiority of science over all other modes of
human inquiry? Or is it more a form of excessive confidence, an
uncritical attitude of glowing admiration? What, if any, are its
dangers? Are fears that science will marginalize the humanities and
eradicate the human subject that it will explain away emotion, free
will, consciousness, and the mystery of existence justified? Does
science need to be reined in before it drives out all other
disciplines and ways of knowing? Both rigorous and balanced,
Science Unlimited? interrogates our use of a term that is now all
but ubiquitous in a wide variety of contexts and debates. Bringing
together scientists and philosophers, both friends and foes of
scientism, it is a conversation long overdue.
All too often in contemporary discourse, we hear about science
overstepping its proper limits about its brazenness, arrogance, and
intellectual imperialism. The problem, critics say, is scientism:
the privileging of science over all other ways of knowing. Science,
they warn, cannot do or explain everything, no matter what some
enthusiasts believe. In Science Unlimited?, noted philosophers of
science Maarten Boudry and Massimo Pigliucci gather a diverse group
of scientists, science communicators, and philosophers of science
to explore the limits of science and this alleged threat of
scientism. In this wide-ranging collection, contributors ask
whether the term scientism in fact (or in belief) captures an
interesting and important intellectual stance, and whether it is
something that should alarm us. Is scientism a well-developed
position about the superiority of science over all other modes of
human inquiry? Or is it more a form of excessive confidence, an
uncritical attitude of glowing admiration? What, if any, are its
dangers? Are fears that science will marginalize the humanities and
eradicate the human subject that it will explain away emotion, free
will, consciousness, and the mystery of existence justified? Does
science need to be reined in before it drives out all other
disciplines and ways of knowing? Both rigorous and balanced,
Science Unlimited? interrogates our use of a term that is now all
but ubiquitous in a wide variety of contexts and debates. Bringing
together scientists and philosophers, both friends and foes of
scientism, it is a conversation long overdue.
What sets the practice of rigorously tested, sound science apart
from pseudoscience? In this volume, the contributors seek to answer
this question, known to philosophers of science as "the demarcation
problem." This issue has a long history in philosophy, stretching
as far back as the early twentieth century and the work of Karl
Popper. But by the late 1980s, scholars in the field began to treat
the demarcation problem as impossible to solve and futile to
ponder. However, the essays that Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten
Boudry have assembled in this volume make a rousing case for the
unequivocal importance of reflecting on the separation between
pseudoscience and sound science. Moreover, the demarcation problem
is not a purely theoretical dilemma of mere academic interest: it
affects parents' decisions to vaccinate children and governments'
willingness to adopt policies that prevent climate change.
Pseudoscience often mimics science, using the superficial language
and trappings of actual scientific research to seem more
respectable. Even a well-informed public can be taken in by such
questionable theories dressed up as science. Pseudoscientific
beliefs compete with sound science on the health pages of
newspapers for media coverage and in laboratories for research
funding. Now more than ever the ability to separate genuine
scientific findings from spurious ones is vital, and Philosophy of
Pseudoscience provides ground for philosophers, sociologists,
historians, and laypeople to make decisions about what science is
or isn't.
What sets the practice of rigorously tested, sound science apart
from pseudoscience? In this volume, the contributors seek to answer
this question, known to philosophers of science as "the demarcation
problem." This issue has a long history in philosophy, stretching
as far back as the early twentieth century and the work of Karl
Popper. But by the late 1980s, scholars in the field began to treat
the demarcation problem as impossible to solve and futile to
ponder. However, the essays that Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten
Boudry have assembled in this volume make a rousing case for the
unequivocal importance of reflecting on the separation between
pseudoscience and sound science. Moreover, the demarcation problem
is not a purely theoretical dilemma of mere academic interest: it
affects parents' decisions to vaccinate children and governments'
willingness to adopt policies that prevent climate change.
Pseudoscience often mimics science, using the superficial language
and trappings of actual scientific research to seem more
respectable. Even a well-informed public can be taken in by such
questionable theories dressed up as science. Pseudoscientific
beliefs compete with sound science on the health pages of
newspapers for media coverage and in laboratories for research
funding. Now more than ever the ability to separate genuine
scientific findings from spurious ones is vital, and Philosophy of
Pseudoscience provides ground for philosophers, sociologists,
historians, and laypeople to make decisions about what science is
or isn't.
|
|