1. The Second Sin, Anchor Books, Garden City, NY, 1974.
2. Collected Papers, eds Hartshorne, C., Weiss, P. and Burks, A., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1931–58, 7.51.
3. In this paper I shall be characterizing as the Old Deferentialism versus the New Cynicism what I formerly called the “Old Romanticism” versus the New Cynicism (‘Science “From a Feminist Perspective”,’ Philosophy, 1992, and reprinted in Halfpenny, P. and McMylor, P.,Positivist Sociology and its Critics, Edward Elgar Press, Aldershot, UK and Brookfield, VT, 1994; ‘Epistemological Reflections of an Old Feminist,’ Reason Papers, 18, 1993, and reprinted, modified and abridged, under the title, ‘Knowledge and Propaganda: Reflections of an Old Feminist,’ in Partisan Review, Fall, 1993.) The earlier vocabulary, I now realize, was inappropriate, because, as Leo Marx puts it, “much of today’s criticism of science… may be traced to the… romantic reaction of European intellectuals in the late eighteenth century” (‘Reflections on the Neo-Romantic Critique of Science,’ in Limits of Scientific Inquiry, eds Gerald Holton and Robert S. Morison, Norton, New York, 1978, p. 63; my emphasis).
4. Susan Haack,Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology, Blackwell, Oxford, 1993, Chapters 6, 7 and 8. The reader is also referred to my ‘Puzzling Out Science,’ Academic Questions, 8.2, Spring 1995, 20–31; to ‘Towards a Sober Sociology of Science,’ in The Flight From Reason and Science, eds Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt, in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 775, 1996, 259–65, and forthcoming with Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD; and to ‘The Puzzle of “Scientific Method”,’ forthcoming in Revue Internationale de Philosophie.
5. The analogy is due to Michael Polanyi, from ‘The Republic of Science,’ in Knowing and Being, ed. Marjorie Grene, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1969, 49–62.