1. Comment on an appropriate relationship between epistemology and science: should one inform the other? Mutually or just one-way? To what degree?
2. Comment on the feminist criticisms in epistemology and science. Which are persuasive to you? Why? Which do you find hard to understand or unacceptable? Why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe they have a mutual relationship. Science is an attempt to aptly categorize the external world, so we are able to communicate with one another about it--scientists give meaning to what they see fit.
ReplyDeleteSounds pessimistic...right? Because science is supposed to be exact and objective? It's difficult to lose faith in something you once believed in so strongly.
Here's the thing, I see epistemology as a type of 'check' on science. This may seem to belittle the entire field of epistemology, but keeping check on science is not its only task! Rather, epistemology just has the privilege to do so. Why? Because I'm into the humanities more than science, so I have a bias toward philosophy...I'm also very honest. I feel unchecked science is problematic for society, so who better to keep it in check than philosophers.
As far as the reciprocal--the existence of science is the reciprocal...philosophers will continually have items to consider.
I think that science and epistemology go hand & hand, you have to use both if you question things down to the ground floor. Science can help prove your point if you have evidence and physical empirical proof of a theory. Because philosophers also considered themselves scientists then they set the bar for the relationship between the two. I think they need each other mutually to be sucessful in proving a theory.
ReplyDeleteThe data or knowledge gathered by science would not be as meaningful if it could not be critiqued by epistemology. Just because a scientist performed some experiments or studies and claims to have reached a particular conclusion, it does not necessarily mean the conclusion is epistemologically justified. (does it?) Epistemologists are needed to examine the validity of various findings of science, to examine the means by which particular info was gathered. For example, they would look at scientific theories and try to determine whether or not the results were in some way biased. A huge gender bias was discovered in the theory of man the hunter & woman the gatherer. Who knows how long this bias would have endured, had it not been for the noble & heroic role of epistemology???
ReplyDeleteBut yeah... it's a mutual thing. It would be difficult to make an epistemological argument without somewhere relying on scientific evidence to support your views.
ReplyDeleteI believe that epistemologic principles can and should be applied to the discipline of science. I found Longino very persuasive with her argument that a combination of traditional and "alternative" virtues would serve science best. I also believe that there are specific cognitive disciplines within science that knowledge of which would benefit Epistemology. To me, it's helps address the question, "How you know what you know."
ReplyDelete