Concepts, anomalies and reality: a response to Bloor and Fehér

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38 (1):241-253 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this article I respond to the defences of the Strong Programme put forward by David Bloor and Márta Fehér in this issue. I dispute the claim that it is attention to only limited parts of the Strong Programme framework that allows me to argue that this approach: leads to weak idealism, undermines the idea that theories have varying levels of instrumental success, and challenges the theoretical claims of scientific actors. Rather, I argue that these problematic positions are entailed by the constructionist tenets at the core of the Strong Programme.Keywords: Strong Programme; David Bloor; Social constructionism; Idealism; Self-Reference; Anomalies.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Saving the Strong Programme: a critique of Stephen Kemp’s recent paper.Márta Fehér - 2007 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38 (1):235-240.
Saving the Strong Programme? A critique of David Bloor’s recent work.Stephen Kemp - 2005 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 36 (4):707-720.
The social construction of social constructionism.Peter Slezak - 1994 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 37 (2):139 – 157.
Ideals and monisms: recent criticisms of the Strong Programme in the sociology of knowledge.David Bloor - 2007 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38 (1):210-234.
Bloor's bluff: Behaviourism and the strong programme.Peter Slezak - 1991 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 5 (3):241 – 256.
Relativism and the Sociology of Mathematics: Remarks on Bloor, Flew, and Frege.Timm Triplett - 1986 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 29 (1-4):439-450.
Bad arguments against a good case (Laudan's attack on the strong programme).Márta Fehér - 1998 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (3):233-238.
The "strong programme", normativity, and social causes.Chris Calvert-Minor - 2008 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 38 (1):1–22.
A Second Look at David Bloor’s Knowledge and Social Imagery.Peter Slezak - 1994 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 24 (3):336-361.
Alternative mathematics and the strong programme: Reply to Triplett.Richard C. Jennings - 1988 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 31 (1):93 – 101.
Toward a monistic theory of science: The `strong programme' reconsidered.Stephen Kemp - 2003 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 33 (3):311-338.
How Strong is Dr. Bloor's 'Strong Programme'?Gad Freudenthal - 1979 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 10 (1):67.
Naturalized epistemology, or what the Strong Programme can’t explain.Karyn L. Freedman - 2005 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 36 (1):135-148.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-02

Downloads
24 (#639,942)

6 months
3 (#992,474)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Anti-Latour.David Bloor - 1999 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 30 (1):81-112.
The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers.Imre Lakatos, John Worrall & Gregory Currie - 1979 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 30 (4):381-402.
Ideals and monisms: recent criticisms of the Strong Programme in the sociology of knowledge.David Bloor - 2007 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38 (1):210-234.
Toward a monistic theory of science: The `strong programme' reconsidered.Stephen Kemp - 2003 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 33 (3):311-338.

View all 7 references / Add more references