This article examines two approaches to the analysis and critical assessment of scientific argumentation. The first approach employs the discourse theory that Jurgen Habermas has developed on the basis of his theory of communicative action and applied to the areas of politics and law. Using his analysis of law and democracy in his Between Facts and Norms as a kind of template, I sketch the main steps in a Habermasian discourse theory of science. Difficulties in his approach motivate my proposal (...) of an alternative approach that starts not with a theory of communicative action but with some broad categories drawn from argumentation theory. Using these categories, one can survey the various conceptions of scientific argumentation that have already emerged in the multi-disciplinary field of science studies. The more flexible, open-ended theoretic categories put one in a better position to'develop cooperative interdisciplinary studies that can inform the critical assessment of scientific argumentation. (shrink)

This article asks whether an interdisciplinary "critical science studies" (CSS) is possible between a critical theory in the Frankfurt School tradition, with its commitment to universal standards of reason, and relativistic sociologies of scientific knowledge (e.g., David Bloor's strong programme). It is argued that CSS is possible if its practitioners adopt the epistemological equivalent of Rawls's method of avoidance. A discriminating, public policy–relevant critique of science can then proceed on the basis of an argumentation theory that employs an immanent standard (...) of relevance, which is illustrated by drawing on Helen Longino's critique of behavioral theory. (shrink)

This article tackles the problem of normativity in naturalism and considers it in the context of the philosophy of historiography. I argue that strong naturalism is inconsistent with genuine normat...

Academic debates are so frequent and omnipresent in most disciplines, particularly the social sciences and humanities, it seems obvious that disagreements are bound to occur. The aim of this paper is to show that whereas the agent who perceives his/her contribution as being misunderstood locates the origin of the communication problem on the side of the receiver who "misinterprets" the text, the emitter is in fact also contributing to the possibility of this misunderstanding through the very manner in which his/her (...) text is written. In other words, I propose a symmetric approach to understanding misunderstandings: taking simultaneously into account the position of the reader in the scientific field and the structure of the texts of the writers. The paper thus proposes to complement the sociological analysis of controversies in a scientific field with the close reading of texts, a practice usually found in studies of argumentation, in order to explain the occurrence of misunderstandings. The debate surrounding the charge of "relativism" among sociologists of scientific knowledge provides us with a case study to analyse in detail the argumentative context of misunderstanding. (shrink)

Význam Thomase Kuhna z hlediska jeho vlivu na další vývoj představ o povaze vědy a konkrétně na vznik tzv. sociologie vědeckého poznání bývá dnes běžně spojován s jeho Strukturou vědeckých revolucí, zatímco jeho starším historickým pracím je v tomto ohledu jen zřídkakdy věnována pozornost. Příspěvek analyzuje právě tyto práce a pokouší se charakterizovat základní metodologické rysy Kuhnova přístupu k dějinám vědy, který je v nich uplatňován. Prostřednictvím jejich porovnání s metodologickými východisky rané sociologie vědeckého poznání se snaží zjistit, nakolik lze (...) již Kuhnovy historické práce považovat za významné ze sociologické perspektivy. Jelikož tyto práce pocházejí z doby, kdy byla historiografie vědy pod výrazným vlivem Alexandra Koyrého, příspěvek zkoumá také metodologická východiska jeho prací, aby bylo možno zjistit, do jaké míry se Kuhnův přístup vymykal standardní poválečné historiogra) i vědy navazující na Koyrého tradici. (shrink)