Abstract
AbstractThis paper argues that the proponents of epistemological scientism must take some stand on scientific methodology. The supporters of scientism cannot simply defer to the social organisation of science because the social processes themselves must meet some methodological criteria. Among such criteria is epistemic evaluability, which demands intersubjective access to reasons. We derive twelve theses outlining some implications of epistemic evaluability. Evaluability can support weak and broad variants of epistemological scientism, which state that sciences, broadly construed, are the best sources of knowledge or some other epistemic goods. Since humanities and social sciences produce epistemically evaluable results, narrow types of scientism that take only natural sciences as sources of knowledge require additional argumentation in their support. Strong scientism, which takes sciences as the only source of knowledge, also needs to appeal to some further principles since evaluability is not an all-or-nothing affair.
Funder
University of Helsinki including Helsinki University Central Hospital
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,Philosophy
Reference71 articles.
1. Ayer, A. J. (Ed.). (1959). Logical positivism. Free Press.
2. Bogen, J., & Woodward, J. (2005). Evading the IRS. Poznań Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, 20, 223–256.
3. Boudry, M. (2017). Plus ultra: Why science does not have limits. In M. Boudry & M. Pigliucci (Eds.), Science unlimited? The challenges of scientism (pp. 31–52). University of Chicago Press.
4. Boudry, M. (2011). Here be dragons: Exploring the Hinterland of science. Doctoral dissertation. Ghent University.
5. Boudry, M., & Pigliucci, M. (Eds.). (2017). Science unlimited? The challenges of scientism. The University of Chicago Press.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献