• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Studies in history and philosophy of science >Pluralism and objectivity: Exposing and breaking a circle
【24h】

Pluralism and objectivity: Exposing and breaking a circle

机译：多元化和客观性：暴露和打破一个圆圈

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The paper argues that Helen Longino's pluralism implies circularity as it claims a preferably high number of qualified contributions to any scientific discussion that aims for objectivity, but does not regard the question who or what sets and employs the standards that rule the decision who is qualified to contribute and who is not. Therefore, objectivity is premised for a process that is to generate that very objectivity. Philip Kitcher's ideal of democratization of science seems only to bypass the problem by introducing ideal deliberators tutored by appropriate experts, as for the implementation of this ideal the deliberators and experts, again, would have to be appointed by someone. However, Kitcher's approach is based on a Rawlsian egalitarism and in this sense calls for political intrusion which could be based on case-by-case decisions. This offers a solution. I will illuminate the problem by some examples from climatology and demonstrate how Kitcher's approach can help to tackle the problem by a final case study of pluralism in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
机译：该论文认为，海伦·隆吉诺的多元论暗示了循环性，因为它主张对旨在客观性的任何科学讨论都应有大量的合格贡献，但不考虑谁或由谁制定和采用决定谁有资格做出决定的标准的问题。贡献，谁不贡献。因此，客观性是产生这种客观性的过程的前提。菲利普·基特切尔（Philip Kitcher）的科学民主化理想似乎只是通过引入由适当的专家辅导的理想的审议者来绕过这个问题，因为要实现这一理想，审议者和专家再次必须由某人任命。但是，Kitcher的方法是基于罗尔斯式的讽刺主义，从这个意义上讲，它要求进行政治干预，这可以基于个案决策。这提供了一个解决方案。我将通过一些气候学方面的例子来阐明这个问题，并通过政府间气候变化专门委员会对多元论进行最后的案例研究来论证Kitcher的方法如何帮助解决这个问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号