Ludwik Fleck’s main contribution lies in the awareness for the deeply social and collective dimension of scientific work, its procedures, but also its style and mode of thinking. However, it is this very focus that gives for a lot of his reader the licence to put Fleck into the constructivist camp. This is wrongheaded and based on a misinterpretation of the status of the social element in research. To show that I read Fleck as a humble transcendentalist to appreciate both, (...) the historically sensitive approach in Fleck and its non-constructivist aspects. Thereby, we find a middle ground circumventing naïve realism as well as full-blown relativism. One might call this position transcendental pragmatism. (shrink)

An overview of the German philosophy of science community is given for the years 1992–2012, based on a survey in which 159 philosophers of science in Germany participated. To this end, the institutional background of the German philosophy of science community is examined in terms of journals, centers, and associations. Furthermore, a qualitative description and a quantitative analysis of our survey results are presented. Quantitative estimates are given for: (a) academic positions, (b) research foci, (c) philosophers’ of science most important (...) publications, and (d) externally funded projects, where for (c) all survey participants had indicated their five most important publications in philosophy of science. In addition, the survey results for (a)–(c) are also qualitatively described, as they are interesting in their own right. With respect to (a), we estimated the gender distribution among academic positions. Concerning (c), we quantified philosophers’ of science preference for (i) journals and publishers, (ii) publication format, (iii) language, and (iv) coauthorship for their most important publications. With regard to research projects, we determined their (i) prevalence, (ii) length, and (iii) trend (an increase in number?) as well as their most frequent (iv) research foci and (v) funding organizations. We also distinguished between German-based and non-German-based journals, publishers, and funding institutions, making it thereby possible to evaluate the involvement of the German philosophy of science community in the international research landscape. Finally, we discuss some implications of our findings. (shrink)

In this paper, I show that there are important but hitherto unnoticed similarities between key figures of the Vienna Circle and early defenders of sociology of knowledge. The similarities regard their stance on potential implications of the study of science for political and societal issues. I argue that notably Otto Neurath and Karl Mannheim are concerned with proposing a genuine political philosophy of science that is remarkably different from today’s emerging interest in the relation between science and society in philosophy (...) of science. (shrink)

Without doubt, there is a great diversity of scientific images both with regard to their appearances and their functions. Diagrams, photographs, drawings, etc. serve as evidence in publications, as eye-catchers in presentations, as surrogates for the research object in scientific reasoning. This fact has been highlighted by Stephen M. Downes who takes this diversity as a reason to argue against a unifying representation-based account of how visualisations play their epistemic role in science. In the following paper, I will suggest an (...) alternative explanation of the diversity of scientific images. This account refers to processes which are caused by the social setting of science. What exactly is meant by this, I will spell out with the aid of Ludwik Fleck’s theory of the social mechanisms of scientific communication. (shrink)

Much of Ludwik Fleck’s work on the social constitution of knowledge, scientific facts, and objects of inquiry is informed by a specific use of transcendental arguments. This paper analyzes the ways in which Fleck looks for “conditions of possibilities” for the stylization and circulation of cognition. Following a brief discussion of his political agenda regarding science’s “cultural mission,” the paper offers a reconstruction of Fleck’s implicit concept of the transcendental. It is argued that Fleck addresses scientific truth as an ongoing (...) revealing and concealing of possibilities for doing research. By implication, the truth about a scientific fact is at once situated in scientific practices and transcended by a horizon of possibilities. The transcendental takes shape in Fleck’s social epistemology as a result of the reflection upon knowledge production’s “situated transcendence.”. (shrink)

In Durkheim’s central methodological argument for the theoretical autonomy of sociology, the delimitation of the subject matter of that discipline amounts to revealing the sui generis status of sociological facts. The latter are not reducible to material things, but they have to be methodologically approached as scientific facts whose reality is independent of the observer’s subjective experience. The sociological facts reside in the trans-individual conceptual frameworks of individual action. These are frameworks which transcend individual representations, motives, and interests. By implication, (...) the empirical character of theoretical sociology hinges on.. (shrink)

Ludwik Fleck’s rediscovery, initiated by Thomas Kuhn, was prominently related to its sociological emphasis. But while this emphasis as such resonated with the sociological circles within science studies, Fleck’s actual sociological position was criticized for lacking clear boundaries to psychology and philosophy, and eventually for inconsistency. This article agrees with the former judgement and rejects the latter. It introduces as core and key to Fleck’s own sociology the thought style of Völkerpsychologie, and the sociology Georg Simmel developed from this tradition.

A curious feature of medical literature on the evaluation of diagnostic accuracy is the frequent deployment of circular arguments. Using a case study from the medical literature on the diagnosis of child abuse, I argue that this occurs because researchers fail to distinguish what Ludwik Fleck called the ‘active’ and ‘passive’ elements of knowledge. I review the scholarly literature on this aspect of Fleck’s epistemology to try to understand why it has not been put to more use in the medical (...) literature. Scholars have admitted that Fleck’s account of the active and passive elements of knowledge has confused them, and it has been read in at least three different ways: as an extreme form of relativism, as a form of realism, and as a more ‘middle way’ in-between these poles. I argue that he ‘middle way’ view is both more congenial with the bulk of Fleck’s work, and more palatable to medical practitioners. (shrink)

Distributive egalitarians believe that distributive justice is to be explained by the idea of distributive equality (DE) and that DE is of intrinsic value. The socio-relational critique argues that distributive egalitarianism does not account for the “true” value of equality, which rather lies in the idea of “equality as a substantive social value” (ESV). This paper examines the socio-relational critique and argues that it fails because – contrary to what the critique presupposes –, first, ESV is not conceptually distinct from (...) DE, and second, the idea of ESV cannot serve as a “foundation” or “root” of distributive egalitarianism. (shrink)

In a recent paper in 'Social Epistemology' Dimitri Ginev aims to show that Ludwik Fleck uses transcendental arguments in two contexts in his work that are closely intertwined: the context of comparative cognitive sociology and the context of socio-historical epistemology. I am skeptical about Ginev’s interpretation and my aim is to show that at least the part of Ginev’s argument in which he aims to show Fleck’s use of transcendental arguments in the context of socio-historical epistemology is not convincing. To (...) my mind, a much better interpretation of Fleck’s argument in this context is to see Fleck as using scientisticinstead of transcendental arguments. (shrink)

One of the factors that adversely influenced the worldwide reception of Fleck was the rather narrow critical interest that his ideas had aroused in Poland. Apart from a few reviews of his book, only two polemics were published before WWII, and these likewise fell into oblivion. The philosophical views of one of those polemists, Tadeusz Bilikiewicz, shared the same fate. Since an acquaintance with Bilikiewicz’s background would seem to be a necessary condition for a understanding of his controversy with Fleck, (...) the aim of this paper is to sketch his views on the history and sociology of science, and to clarify certain errors regarding the facts of his life. (shrink)