Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T13:21:09.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Science Policy from a Naturalistic Sociological Epistemology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Donald T Campbell
Donald T Campbell*
Affiliation:
Lehigh University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Philip Kitcher and his program committee hoped to stimulate a lively debate this evening on the role which philosophers of science might play as advisors to government and the professional institutions of scientists. It is my guess that they had two changes in mind. They wanted more philosophers of science advising in Washington's science policy decisions. They also want you philosophers of science to develop those aspects of your field which are relevant to such decisions. They believe (I would guess) that not all of the scholarship of this association has such relevance, but that much of it does; that the relevant parts can still retain a genuinely epistemological,focus; and that science policy advice is better done by philosophers of science than by any other profession (e.g., the sociology of science). Perhaps I have merely projected these beliefs on to the program committee. They are, in any event, ones I hold and hope that they share.

Type
Part I. Philosophy of Science and Public Policy
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1984 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1984 , 1984 , pp. 14 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackermann, Robert J (1985). Data Instruments and Theory: A Dialectical Approach to Understanding Science. Princeton: Princeton university Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agassi, J. (1981). “The Social Base of Scientific Theory and Practice.” In Rationality In Science and Politics. (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Volume 79). Edited by Anderson, Gunna. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pages 15-28.Google Scholar
Bartley III, H.H, (1985). “Knowledge is a Product not Fully Known to its Producer.” In The Political Economy of Freedom. Edited by Leube, Kur and Zlabinger, Alber. Munich: Philosophia Verlag. Pages 17-45.Google Scholar
Beatty, John (1985). “Pluralism and Panselectionism.” In PSA 1984, Volume 2. Edited by Asquith, P.D and Kitcher, P. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association. Pages 113-128.Google Scholar
Bechtel, William (1984). “The Evolution of our understanding of the Cell: A Study of the Dynamics of Scientific Progress.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 15: 309-356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boring, E.G (1923). “Intelligence as the Tests Test it.” The New Republic 34: 33-36. (Partially reprinted in History Psychology and Science Selected Papers. Edited by R.I. Hatson and D.T. Campbell. New York: John Hiley & Sons, 1963. Pages 187-189.)Google Scholar
Bridgman, P.H (1927). The Logic of Modern Physics. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Brown, James Rober (ed.). (1984a). Scientific Rationality: The Sociological Turn. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, James Robert (1984b). “Introduction: The Sociological Turn.” In Brown (1984a). Pages 3-40.Google Scholar
Burks, Arthur H (1977). Chance, Cause, Reason: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Scientific Evidence. Chicago: The University of chicago Press:.Google Scholar
Campbell, D.T (1959). “Methodological Suggestions from a Comparative Psychology of Knowledge Processes.” Inquiry 2: 152-182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D.T and Fiske, D.H (1959) “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix.” Psychological Bulletin 56: 81-105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D.T.. (1960). “Recommendations for APA Test Standards Regarding Construct, Trait, or Discriminant Validity.” Amerioan Psychologist 15: 546-553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D.T.. (1974). “Evolutionary Epistemology.” In The Philosophy of Karl Popper. Edited by P.A. Schlipp. LaSalle, IL: Open Court. Pages 413-463.Google Scholar
Campbell, D.T (1979a). “Assessing the Impact of Planned Social Change.” Evaluation and Program Planning 2: 67-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D.T.. (1979b). “A Tribal Model of the Social System Vehicle Carrying Scientific Knowledge.” Knowledge 2: 181-201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D.T and O'Connell, E (1982). “Methods as Diluting Trait Relationships Rather than Adding Irrelevant Systematic Variance.” In Forms of Validity in Research. (New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science. Number 12.) Edited by Brinberg, D and Kidder, L. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pages 93-111.Google Scholar
Campbell, D.T (1983). “The Two Distinct Routes Beyond Kin Selection to Ultrasociality: Implications for the Humanities and Social Sciences.” In The Nature of Prosocial Development: Theories and Strategies. Edited by Bridgeman, Diane L. New York: Academic Press. Pages 11-41.Google Scholar
Campbell, D.T (1984a). “Can He Be Scientific in Applied Social Science.” In Evaluation Studies Review Annual. Volume 9. Edited by Conner, Ros, Altman, David G and Jackson, Christin. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Pages 26-48.Google Scholar
Campbell, D.T (1984b). “Types of Evolutionary Epistemology Extended to a Sociology of Scientific Belief.” Presented at the International Conference on Evolutionary Epistemology, university of Ghent, Nov. 11-13, 1984. Callebaut, Werne and Pinxten, Ri Organizers and Editors of the proceedings.Google Scholar
Campbell, D.T (1986). “Scienoe»s Social System of Validity-Enhancing Collective Belief Change.” In Metatheory in Social Science: Pluralisms and Subjectivities. Edited by Campbell, Fisk and Shweder, R.A. Chicago: university of Chicago Press. Pages 108-135.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolph (1934). The Unity of Science, (trans.) M. Black. London: Paul, Kega.Google Scholar
Child, Arthur (1946). “On the Theory of the Categories.” Philosophy and Phenomenologioal Research 7: 316-335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Child, Arthur (1947). “The Problem of Truth in the Sociology of Knowledge.” Ethics 58: 18-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
deVries, Gerar (1982a). “Internalisation and Externalisation - An Argument for an Empirical Investigation of ‘Contexts of Justification’ ” and “The Collectives of ‘Normal’ and ‘Functionalized’ Science.” In Dynamics of Science. Volume 2. Edited by G. deVries et al Groningen: Twente. Pages 210-238, 268-281.Google Scholar
deVries, Gerar (1982b). “De Ontwlkkeling van Wetenschappelijke Kennis, Sociologisch Beschouwd.” Kennis en Methode 6: 190-220.Google Scholar
Ellis, Brian (1979). Rational Belief Systems. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Feigl, Herbert (1949). “Naturalism and Humanism.” American Quarterly 1: 135-148. (As reprinted as “The Scientific Outlook: Naturalism and Humanism.” In Readings in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofta, 1953. Edited by Feigl, Herbert and May Brodbeck. Pages 8-18.)Google Scholar
Fiske, Donald W (1982). “Convergent-Discriminant Validation in Msasurements and Research Strategies.” In Forms of Validity in Research. (New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science, Number 12.) Edited by Brinberg, D and Kidder, L. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pages 77-92.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald N (1984). “Toward a unified Theory of Science.” In Science and Reality. Edited by Cushing, J.T Delaney, C.F and G., Guttin Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. Pages 5-31.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald N (1985a). “Constructive Realism.” In Images of Science. Edited by Churchland, P.M and Hooker, C.A. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Pages 75-98.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald N (1985b). “Philosophy of Science Naturalized.” Philosophy of Science 52: 331-356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsberg, Pauline E (1984). “The Dysfunctional Side Effects of Quantitative Indicator Production: Illustrations from Mental Health Care.” Evaluation and Program Planning 7: 1-12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Alvin I (1983). “The Social Epistemology of Science.” Funded research proposal, National Science Foundation Program in the History and Philosophy of Science. Proposal number SES8204737.Google Scholar
Grunbaum, Adolf (1983). “Freud's Theory: The Perspective of a Philosopher of Science.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 57: 5-31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grunbaum, Adolf (1984). The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical Critique. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gutting, Gary (1984). “The Strong Program: A Dialogue.” In Brown (1984a). Pages 95-111.Google Scholar
Haack, Susan (1984). “Epistemologlcally Relevant Sociology of Science.” Unpublished manuscript, Department of Philosophy, University of Warwick, Coventry, England (March, 1984 version).Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen (1970a). “On Systematically Distorted Communication.” Inquiry 13: 205-218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen (1970b). “Toward a Theory of Communicative Competence.” Inquiry 13: 360-375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D.L (1978). “Altruism in Science: A Sociobiologlcal Model of Cooperative Behavior among Scientists.” Animal Behaviour 26: 685-697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D.L (1982). “The Naked Meme.” In Learning. Development and Culture: Essays in Evolutionary Epistemology. Edited by Plotkin, H. Chichester and New York: Wiley and Sons. Pages 273-327.Google Scholar
Hull, D.L (1985). “Conceptual Evolution and the Eye of the Octopus.” In Seventh Proceedings of the International Congress of Logic Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Edited by Heingartner, Pau, Marcus, Ruth Barca and Dorn, Geor. Dordrecht: North Holland. Pages 643-665.Google Scholar
Jarvie, I.C (1984). “A Plague on Both Your Houses.” In Brown (1984a). Pages 165-182.Google Scholar
Jarvie, I.C (1985). “Explanation, Reduction and the Sociological Turn in the Philosophy of Science, or Kuhn as an Ideologue for Merton's Theory of Science.” In Unity of Science, Volume 2. Edited by Gerard Radnltsky. New York: Parogon House, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Johnson, P and Tibbetts, P (1984). “The ‘Discourse’ and Praxis’ Models in Recent Reconsiderations of Scientific Knowledge Generation.” In George Sarton Centennial. Nov. 14-17. Edited by Callebaut, W, Cozzens, S.E, LeCuyer, B.P, Rips, A and van Bendegem, J.P. Ghent: Communication and Cognition. Pages 24-28 (abstract in conference program book).Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1983). “The Faraday Perplex.” Paper delivered at the Wellesley meetings, June, 1983, of the Society for Philosophy and Psychology.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1984). “Tempo and Mode in Scientific Change.” Duplicated manuscript, Department of Philosophy, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Lacey, Hugh (1984). “The Rationality of Science.” Duplicated manuscript, March, 1984, Department of Philosophy, Swarthmore University.Google Scholar
Laudan, L (1981a). “A Confutation of Convergent Realism.” Philosophy of Science 48: 19-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1981b). Science and Hypothesis. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1982). “Two Puzzles About Science: Reflections About Some Crises in Philosophy and Sociology of Science.” Minerva 20: 253-268.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1984). Science and Values. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, Keit and Wagner, Carl (1981). Rational Consensus in Science and Society: A Philosophical and Mathematical Study. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llobera, Joseph R (1981). “The Enlightenment and Adam Smith's Conception of Science.” In Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present. Edited by Kuklick, H Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, Inc. Pages 109-136.Google Scholar
Lugg, Andrew (1983). “Explaining the Scientific Beliefs: The Rationalist's Strategy Re-Examlned.” Philosophy of Social Science 13: 265-278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lugg, Andrew (1984). “Two Historiographical Strategies: Ideas and Social Conditions in the History of Science.” In Brown (1984a). Pages 183-208.Google Scholar
Manier, Edward (1980). “Levels of Reflexivity: Unnoted Differences within the ‘Strong Programme’ in the Sociology of Knowledge.” In PSA 1980, Volume 1. Edited by Asquith, P.D and Giere, R.N. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association. Pages 197-207.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan (1984). “The Rational and the Social in the History of Science.” In Brown (1984a). Pages 127-163.Google Scholar
Merton, R.K (1973). The Sociology of Science. Chicago: university of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mohr, Hans (1984). “The Ethics of Science: Compatible with the Concept of Evolutionary Epistemology?” In Concepts and Approaches in Evolutionary Epistemology. Edited by Franz M. Huketits. Dordrecht and Boston: D. Reidel. Pages 149-184.Google Scholar
Nicholas, John M (1984). “Scientific and Other Interests.” In Brown (1984a). Pages 265-294.Google Scholar
Nickles, Thomas (1985). “Observation and Justification: Generative, Consequential, and Social.” Paper presented at The Uses of Experiment: A Conference on Experimentation in the Natural Sciences. University of Bath, August.Google Scholar
Oeser, Erhar (1984). “The Evolution of Scientific Method.” In Concepts and Approaches In Evolutionary Epistemology. Edited by Franz M. Huketits. Dordrecht and Boston: D. Reidel. Pages 149-184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pall er, Bonnie T and Campbell, Donald T (1986). “Reconciling Maxwell and van Fraassen through Consideration of Sense-Organ Evolution, the Ostensive Basis of the Term ‘Observe,’ and Optimal Justificatory Practice in Science.” In Essays in Honor of Grover Maxwell. Edited by Maxwell, Mary Lo and Hade Savage, C, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Polanyi, M (1958). Personal Knowledge: Toward a Post-Critical Philosophy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M (1966). “A Society of Explorers.” In The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. Pages 53-92.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M (1969). Knowing and Being. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R (1952). The Open Society and Its Enemies. 2nd ed. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R (1975). “The Rationality of Scientific Revolutions.” In Problems of Scientific Revolution: Progress and Obstacles to Progress in the Sciences. Edited by Rom Harre. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pages 72-101.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R (1976). “The Myth of the Framework.” In The Abdication of Phil-figophv: Essays in Honor of Paul Arthur Schilpp. Edited by Freeman, E. LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court. Pages 23-48.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V (1969). “Epistemology Naturalized.” In Ontologioal Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press. Pages 69-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W.V (1974). The Roots of Reference. LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V (1975). “The Nature of Natural Knowledge.” In Mind and Language. Edited by Guttenplan, S. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Pages 67-81.Google Scholar
Roll-Hansen, Nils (1983). “The Death of Spontaneous Generation and the Birth of the Gene: Two Case Studies of Relativism.” Social Studies of Science 13: 481-519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Alexander (1981). “Variation and Artificial Selection in the Evolution of Science.” Duplicated for the ERISS Conference, June 1981, Dept. of Philosophy, Syracuse University.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Alexander (1984). “Methodology, Theory, and Philosophy.” Paper for Larry Laudan's April 1984 conference on the relevance of philosophy of science for scientific methodology.Google Scholar
Smokier, Howard (1983). “Institutional Rationality: the Complex Norms of Science.” Synthese 57: 129-138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1981). “The Evolution of Rationality.” Synthese 46: 95-120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen (1972). Human Understanding. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wartofsky, Marx (1974). “Is Science Rational?” In Science. Technology and Freedom. Edited by Truitt, H.H and Solomons, T.W.G. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Pages 202-210.Google Scholar
Will, Frederick H (1981). “Reason, Social Practice and Scientific Realism.” philosophy of Science 48: 1-18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, William C (1981). “Robustness, Reliability and Overdetermination.” In Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences. Edited by Brewer, Marilyn B and Collins., Barry E San Francisco: jossey-Bass. Pages 124-163.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William C (1986a). “Developmental Constraints, Generative Entrenchment, and the Innate-Acquired Distinction.” In Integrating Disciplines; Case Studies from the Life Sciences. Edited by Bechtel, Willia. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William C (1986b). “Von Baer's Law of Development, Generative Entrenchment, and Scientific Change.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Zenzen, Michael (1978). “Sociology of Science as Theory of Rationality.” Presented at Bloomington, Indiana Meetings of the Society for the Social Studies of Science, November (Duplicated, Dept. of Philosophy, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (12 pp.)Google Scholar
Zuckerman, H (1977). “Deviant Behavior and Social Control in Science.” In Deviance and Social Change. Edited by E. Sagarin. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Pages 87-138.Google Scholar