Advanced graduate seminar in Philosophy of Science. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosoficas, UNA... more Advanced graduate seminar in Philosophy of Science. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosoficas, UNAM, 2017
Some debates about the role of non-epistemic values in science discuss the socalled Value-Free Id... more Some debates about the role of non-epistemic values in science discuss the socalled Value-Free Ideal together with the autonomy thesis, to the point that they may be assumed to be intertwined. As I will argue in this article, the two are independent from one another, are supported by different arguments, and ought to be disentangled. I will also show that the arguments against value-freedom and supporting a value-laden conception of science, are different from the arguments against autonomy, which support democratized science. Moreover, while some of the arguments against autonomy and for democratized science may actually be consistent with value-freedom, they conflict with some philosophical views about the internal diversity of well-designed epistemic communities. This article distinguishes the Value-Free Ideal and the autonomy thesis, as well as their antitheses, and investigates their relations to some of the socio-epistemological models of the social organization of scientific research. Its aim is to make explicit some incompatibilities between different normative frameworks developed in philosophy of science.
Scientists have the epistemic responsibility of producing knowledge. They also have the social re... more Scientists have the epistemic responsibility of producing knowledge. They also have the social responsibility of aligning their research with the needs and values of various societal stakeholders. Individual scientists may be left with no guidance on how to prioritise and carry these different responsibilities. As I will argue, however, the responsibilities of science can be harmonised at the collective level. Drawing from debates in moral philosophy, I will propose a theory of the collective responsibilities of science that accounts for the internal diversity of research groups and for their different responsibilities.
There is a growing concern for the proper role of science within democratic societies, which has ... more There is a growing concern for the proper role of science within democratic societies, which has led to the development of new science policies for the implementation of social responsibility in research. Although the very expression 'social responsibility of science' may be interpreted in different ways, many of these emerging policy frameworks define it, at least in part, as a form of anticipative reflection about the potential impacts of research in society. What remains a rather under-discussed issue is the definition of the bearer of the social responsibility of science. In other words, it is not clear who is supposed to engage in such an anticipative reflection, whether individual researchers or research groups. In the past few years, philosophers of science have begun to use qualitative research methods to fill the gaps between normative models of the organisation of ideal scientific communities and the reality of actual scientific practices. In this article, I follow this approach to discuss the issue of the collective dimension of the social responsibility of science. I rely on a qualitative study conducted on an interdisciplinary research group and I describe how group dynamics position individuals and distribute duties and roles, including social responsibility. Qualitative descriptions of the distribution of duties within actual research groups should inform the formulation of general prescriptive theories on the collective responsibility of science.
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science , 2023
Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) is widely considered as one of the mostimportant philosophers of science ... more Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) is widely considered as one of the mostimportant philosophers of science of the 20th century, while hisTheStructure of Scientific Revolutions(SSR) is regarded as one of themost influential works in the philosophy ofscience. At the sametime, however, his place within philosophy of science remainsambiguous. On the one hand, despite the popularity of SSR, thereis no proper‘Kuhnian school of thought’in HPS. On the otherhand, the interest towards Kuhn does not seem to fade away andthe number of publications about his work does not seem todecrease. We suggest that there are at least three different waysto go‘beyond SSR’: (i) by scrutinising the development of Kuhn’sthought, from his pre- to his post-SSR writings; (ii) bycontextualising Kuhn in the philosophical milieu of his time, thusinterpreting his view as emerging from the intellectual exchangeshe had with contemporary philosophers; (iii) by reinterpretingand developing some of his most known ideas, in ways that perhaps Kuhn himself was not able to contemplate
In the past few years, social epistemologists have developed several formal models of the social ... more In the past few years, social epistemologists have developed several formal models of the social organisation of science. While their robustness and representational adequacy has been analysed at length, the function of these models has begun to be discussed in more general terms only recently. In this article, I will interpret many of the current formal models of the scientific community as representing the latest development of what I will call the 'Kuhnian project'. These models share with Kuhn a number of questions about the relation between individuals and communities. At the same time, they also inherit some of Kuhn's problematic characterisations of the scientific community. In particular, current models of the social organisation of science represent the scientific community as essentially value-free. This may put into question both their representational adequacy and their normative ambitions. In the end, it will be shown that the discussion on the formal models of the scientific community may contribute in fruitful ways to the ongoing debates on value judgements in science.
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2020
In his mature works, Kuhn abandons the concept of a paradigm and becomes more interested in the a... more In his mature works, Kuhn abandons the concept of a paradigm and becomes more interested in the analysis of the conceptual structure of scientific theories. These changes are interpreted as resulting from a ‘linguistic turn’ that Kuhn underwent sometimes around the 1980s. Much of the philosophical discussions about Kuhn’s post-‘linguistic turn’ philosophy revolves around his views on taxonomic concepts. Apart from taxonomy, however, the mature Kuhn introduces other concepts, such as conceptual networks and lexicons. This article distinguishes these three concepts and shows that adopting each one of them has different impacts on Kuhn’s model of science. After distinguishing and assessing the concepts of taxonomy, network, and lexicon, it will be argued that the latter not only fits the Kuhnian model of science better, but it also helps capture the wide sense of Kuhn’s early concept of a paradigm.
To believe that every single scientist ought to be individually engaged in ethical thinking in or... more To believe that every single scientist ought to be individually engaged in ethical thinking in order for science to be responsible at a collective level may be too demanding, if not plainly unrealistic. In fact, ethical labor is typically distributed across different kinds of scientists within the scientific community. Based on the empirical data collected within the Horizon2020 "RRI-Practice" project, we propose a classification of the members of the scientific community depending on their engagement in this collective activity. Our classification offers, on the one hand, a model of how the ethical aspects of science are taken into consideration by scientists and, on the other, some indications on how to institutionalize ethics in science.
Susan Wolf maintains that the meaningfulness of a life arises when someone acts upon the subjecti... more Susan Wolf maintains that the meaningfulness of a life arises when someone acts upon the subjective desire of doing something objectively valuable. This amounts to a hybrid view, which contains both subjectivist and objectivist elements. Wolf's tentative definition of what is objectively valuable amounts to what, in this article, we define as 'intersubjectivism'. As it will be argued, however, intersubjectivism poses a number of problems, which are exacerbated in contemporary society and which shed a new light on the problem of meaning in life. RE-PRINT, PRE-CORRECTION VERSION. Published version available at https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2019-0041
Contemporary interdisciplinary research is often described as bringing some important changes in ... more Contemporary interdisciplinary research is often described as bringing some important changes in the structure and aims of the scientific enterprise. Sometimes, it is even characterized as a sort of Kuhnian scientific revolution. In this paper, the analogy between interdisciplinarity and scientific revolutions will be analysed. It will be suggested that the way in which interdisciplinarity is promoted looks similar to how new paradigms were described and defended in some episodes of revolutionary scientific change. However, contrary to what happens during some scientific revolutions, the rhetoric with which interdisciplinarity is promoted does not seem to be accompanied by a strong agreement about what interdisciplinarity actually is. In the end, contemporary interdisciplinarity could be defined as being in a 'pre-paradigmatic' phase, with the very talk promoting interdisciplinarity being a possible obstacle to its maturity.
This report provides a comparative analysis of 12 national reports about the conceptualizations a... more This report provides a comparative analysis of 12 national reports about the conceptualizations and organisational conditions and practices pertaining to the RRI key of science education. Activities in science education and in societal engagement are often difficult to distinguish; in research-performing and research-funding organisations (RPOs and RFOs) they are typically merged institutionally, i.e. managed by one unit and involve the same individuals. In the RRI-Practice project, science education is defined through its target audience: students, teachers, or life-long learners. In practice, however, this criterion does not allow for a clear separation of this key from others. It emerges from our analysis that science education is often regarded as a standalone core activity of universities, and not as part of RRI. Moreover, the RRI-Practice reports describe educational activities with a particular emphasis on their institutional aspects but without a reflection on specific pedagogical methods. Such a reflection is all the more necessary at a time when science and technology provide innovative content while they also introduce new methods of teaching. In RPOs and RFOs, science education is driven by the understanding of a crucial role of science in societal progress and by the need to overcome the growing disinterest of schoolchildren in science. Alongside such drivers, there exist numerous barriers to science education, starting with a low appreciation of the need to involve researchers in educational activities, which are usually delegated to professional teachers. This translates in inadequate funding for science education at the national and organisational levels. The lack of incentives for researchers and the lack of training are widespread. In some regions, the existing mistrust in scientific research, particularly in areas such as nuclear technology, leads to the need to keep it separate from public education. Good organisational practices that have proven their efficiency include:
1) creating dedicated units or officers for science education within RPOs; 2) including educational activities in the evaluation of researchers; 3) creating special awards to raise the prestige of educational activities
At the international level, there is clear advantage among research organisations whose official government-defined mission includes contributing to the scientific education of their country. Countries with ministries jointly in charge of education and research have a better opportunity to realize such missions in practice.
This report provides a comparative analysis of 12 national reports about the conceptualizations a... more This report provides a comparative analysis of 12 national reports about the conceptualizations and organisational conditions and practices pertaining to the RRI key of ethics. Ethics in the RRI framework refers to: 1) research ethics (norms to be respected in the design of research projects and a reflection on the consequences of research projects); 2) scientific integrity (norms and standards which ought to be respected in scientific practice), and 3) a critical reflection on broader societal aspects of science and technology, including a reflection on values. The obligation to carry out research in accordance with national or international regulatory frameworks is the main driver of scientific integrity and research ethics. National and international reputation is also an important driver. The drivers for the critical reflection on the societal aspects of science and technology are mainly cultural: the growing concern of the publics about potential impacts of science and technology is playing a major role. That 'ethics' may mean different things, as well as the existence of a large number of concepts pertaining to ethical dimension of science and technology, can pose some barriers. The lack of clarity in the definition of 'ethics' and of its relation with other concepts may be related to researchers regarding ethics as a hurdle imposed by national or internal regulations. Thus research ethics is reduced to ticking boxes in checklists, as demanded by some bureaucratic organ. Good organisational practices that have proven their efficiency include: 1) creating clear and accessible guidelines on scientific integrity; 2) encouraging a two-way exchange between researchers and ethical committees in order to promote an organisational culture which includes research ethics in a meaningful way; 3) organizing training courses on the ethics of science for researchers and students, in order to stimulate individual reflection on the potential impacts of science and technology.
In his mature writings, Kuhn describes the process of specialisation as driven by a form of incom... more In his mature writings, Kuhn describes the process of specialisation as driven by a form of incommensurability, defined as a conceptual/linguistic barrier which promotes and guarantees the insularity of specialties. In this paper, we reject the idea that the incommensurability among scientific specialties is a linguistic barrier. We argue that the problem with Kuhn's characterization of the incommensurability among specialties is that he presupposes a rather abstract theory of semantic incommensurability, which he then try to apply to his description of the process of specialisation. By contrast, this paper follows a different strategy: after criticizing Kuhn's view, it takes a further look at how new scientific specialties emerge. As a result, a different way of understanding incommensurability among specialties will be proposed. Specialisation and the incommensurability among scientific specialties In his mature writings, Kuhn describes the process of specialisation as driven by a form of incommensurability, defined as a conceptual/linguistic barrier which promotes and guarantees the insularity of specialties. In this paper, we reject the idea that the incommensurability among scientific specialties is a linguistic barrier. We argue that the problem with Kuhn's characterisation of the incommensurability among specialties is that he presupposes a rather abstract theory of semantic incommensurability, which he then try to apply to his description of the process of specialisation. By contrast, this paper follows a different strategy: after criticising Kuhn's view, it takes a further look at how new scientific specialties emerge. As a result, a different way of understanding incommensurability among specialties will be proposed.
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2018
Incommensurability may be regarded as driving specialisation, on the one hand, and as posing some... more Incommensurability may be regarded as driving specialisation, on the one hand, and as posing some problems to interdisciplinarity, on the other hand. It may be argued, however, that incommensurability plays no role in either specialisation or interdisciplinarity. Scientific specialties could be defined as simply 'different' (that is, about different things), rather than 'incommensurable' (that is, competing for the explanation of the same phenomena). Interdisciplinarity could be viewed as the coordinated effort of scientists possessing complementary and interlocking skills, and not as the overcoming of some sort of incommensurable divide. This article provides a comprehensive evaluative examination of the relations between specialisation, interdisciplinarity, and incommensurability. Its aim is to defend the relevance of incommensurability to both specialisation and interdisciplinarity. At the same time, it aims at correcting the tendency, common among many philosophers, to regard incommensurability in a restrictive manner—such as, for example, as an almost purely semantic issue.
In his late years, Thomas Kuhn became interested in the process of scientific specialization, whi... more In his late years, Thomas Kuhn became interested in the process of scientific specialization, which does not seem to possess the destructive element that is characteristic of scientific revolutions. It therefore makes sense to investigate whether and how Kuhn's insights about specialization are consistent with, and actually fit, his model of scientific progress through revolutions. In this paper, I argue that the transition toward a new specialty corresponds to a revolutionary change for the group of scientists involved in such a transition. I will clarify the role of the scientific community in revolutionary changes and characterize the incommensurability across specialties as possessing both semantic and methodological aspects. The discussion of the discovery of the structure of DNA will serve both as an illustration of my main argument and as reply to one criticism raised against Kuhn – namely, that his model cannot capture cases of revolutionary yet non-disruptive episodes of scientific progress. Revisiting Kuhn's ideas on specialization will shed new light on some often overlooked features of scientific change.
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 2015
This is an early (and very badly edited) draft of a paper forthcoming in Studies in History and P... more This is an early (and very badly edited) draft of a paper forthcoming in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. The actual paper is available on line at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368115001375
Advanced graduate seminar in Philosophy of Science. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosoficas, UNA... more Advanced graduate seminar in Philosophy of Science. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosoficas, UNAM, 2017
Some debates about the role of non-epistemic values in science discuss the socalled Value-Free Id... more Some debates about the role of non-epistemic values in science discuss the socalled Value-Free Ideal together with the autonomy thesis, to the point that they may be assumed to be intertwined. As I will argue in this article, the two are independent from one another, are supported by different arguments, and ought to be disentangled. I will also show that the arguments against value-freedom and supporting a value-laden conception of science, are different from the arguments against autonomy, which support democratized science. Moreover, while some of the arguments against autonomy and for democratized science may actually be consistent with value-freedom, they conflict with some philosophical views about the internal diversity of well-designed epistemic communities. This article distinguishes the Value-Free Ideal and the autonomy thesis, as well as their antitheses, and investigates their relations to some of the socio-epistemological models of the social organization of scientific research. Its aim is to make explicit some incompatibilities between different normative frameworks developed in philosophy of science.
Scientists have the epistemic responsibility of producing knowledge. They also have the social re... more Scientists have the epistemic responsibility of producing knowledge. They also have the social responsibility of aligning their research with the needs and values of various societal stakeholders. Individual scientists may be left with no guidance on how to prioritise and carry these different responsibilities. As I will argue, however, the responsibilities of science can be harmonised at the collective level. Drawing from debates in moral philosophy, I will propose a theory of the collective responsibilities of science that accounts for the internal diversity of research groups and for their different responsibilities.
There is a growing concern for the proper role of science within democratic societies, which has ... more There is a growing concern for the proper role of science within democratic societies, which has led to the development of new science policies for the implementation of social responsibility in research. Although the very expression 'social responsibility of science' may be interpreted in different ways, many of these emerging policy frameworks define it, at least in part, as a form of anticipative reflection about the potential impacts of research in society. What remains a rather under-discussed issue is the definition of the bearer of the social responsibility of science. In other words, it is not clear who is supposed to engage in such an anticipative reflection, whether individual researchers or research groups. In the past few years, philosophers of science have begun to use qualitative research methods to fill the gaps between normative models of the organisation of ideal scientific communities and the reality of actual scientific practices. In this article, I follow this approach to discuss the issue of the collective dimension of the social responsibility of science. I rely on a qualitative study conducted on an interdisciplinary research group and I describe how group dynamics position individuals and distribute duties and roles, including social responsibility. Qualitative descriptions of the distribution of duties within actual research groups should inform the formulation of general prescriptive theories on the collective responsibility of science.
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science , 2023
Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) is widely considered as one of the mostimportant philosophers of science ... more Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) is widely considered as one of the mostimportant philosophers of science of the 20th century, while hisTheStructure of Scientific Revolutions(SSR) is regarded as one of themost influential works in the philosophy ofscience. At the sametime, however, his place within philosophy of science remainsambiguous. On the one hand, despite the popularity of SSR, thereis no proper‘Kuhnian school of thought’in HPS. On the otherhand, the interest towards Kuhn does not seem to fade away andthe number of publications about his work does not seem todecrease. We suggest that there are at least three different waysto go‘beyond SSR’: (i) by scrutinising the development of Kuhn’sthought, from his pre- to his post-SSR writings; (ii) bycontextualising Kuhn in the philosophical milieu of his time, thusinterpreting his view as emerging from the intellectual exchangeshe had with contemporary philosophers; (iii) by reinterpretingand developing some of his most known ideas, in ways that perhaps Kuhn himself was not able to contemplate
In the past few years, social epistemologists have developed several formal models of the social ... more In the past few years, social epistemologists have developed several formal models of the social organisation of science. While their robustness and representational adequacy has been analysed at length, the function of these models has begun to be discussed in more general terms only recently. In this article, I will interpret many of the current formal models of the scientific community as representing the latest development of what I will call the 'Kuhnian project'. These models share with Kuhn a number of questions about the relation between individuals and communities. At the same time, they also inherit some of Kuhn's problematic characterisations of the scientific community. In particular, current models of the social organisation of science represent the scientific community as essentially value-free. This may put into question both their representational adequacy and their normative ambitions. In the end, it will be shown that the discussion on the formal models of the scientific community may contribute in fruitful ways to the ongoing debates on value judgements in science.
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2020
In his mature works, Kuhn abandons the concept of a paradigm and becomes more interested in the a... more In his mature works, Kuhn abandons the concept of a paradigm and becomes more interested in the analysis of the conceptual structure of scientific theories. These changes are interpreted as resulting from a ‘linguistic turn’ that Kuhn underwent sometimes around the 1980s. Much of the philosophical discussions about Kuhn’s post-‘linguistic turn’ philosophy revolves around his views on taxonomic concepts. Apart from taxonomy, however, the mature Kuhn introduces other concepts, such as conceptual networks and lexicons. This article distinguishes these three concepts and shows that adopting each one of them has different impacts on Kuhn’s model of science. After distinguishing and assessing the concepts of taxonomy, network, and lexicon, it will be argued that the latter not only fits the Kuhnian model of science better, but it also helps capture the wide sense of Kuhn’s early concept of a paradigm.
To believe that every single scientist ought to be individually engaged in ethical thinking in or... more To believe that every single scientist ought to be individually engaged in ethical thinking in order for science to be responsible at a collective level may be too demanding, if not plainly unrealistic. In fact, ethical labor is typically distributed across different kinds of scientists within the scientific community. Based on the empirical data collected within the Horizon2020 "RRI-Practice" project, we propose a classification of the members of the scientific community depending on their engagement in this collective activity. Our classification offers, on the one hand, a model of how the ethical aspects of science are taken into consideration by scientists and, on the other, some indications on how to institutionalize ethics in science.
Susan Wolf maintains that the meaningfulness of a life arises when someone acts upon the subjecti... more Susan Wolf maintains that the meaningfulness of a life arises when someone acts upon the subjective desire of doing something objectively valuable. This amounts to a hybrid view, which contains both subjectivist and objectivist elements. Wolf's tentative definition of what is objectively valuable amounts to what, in this article, we define as 'intersubjectivism'. As it will be argued, however, intersubjectivism poses a number of problems, which are exacerbated in contemporary society and which shed a new light on the problem of meaning in life. RE-PRINT, PRE-CORRECTION VERSION. Published version available at https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2019-0041
Contemporary interdisciplinary research is often described as bringing some important changes in ... more Contemporary interdisciplinary research is often described as bringing some important changes in the structure and aims of the scientific enterprise. Sometimes, it is even characterized as a sort of Kuhnian scientific revolution. In this paper, the analogy between interdisciplinarity and scientific revolutions will be analysed. It will be suggested that the way in which interdisciplinarity is promoted looks similar to how new paradigms were described and defended in some episodes of revolutionary scientific change. However, contrary to what happens during some scientific revolutions, the rhetoric with which interdisciplinarity is promoted does not seem to be accompanied by a strong agreement about what interdisciplinarity actually is. In the end, contemporary interdisciplinarity could be defined as being in a 'pre-paradigmatic' phase, with the very talk promoting interdisciplinarity being a possible obstacle to its maturity.
This report provides a comparative analysis of 12 national reports about the conceptualizations a... more This report provides a comparative analysis of 12 national reports about the conceptualizations and organisational conditions and practices pertaining to the RRI key of science education. Activities in science education and in societal engagement are often difficult to distinguish; in research-performing and research-funding organisations (RPOs and RFOs) they are typically merged institutionally, i.e. managed by one unit and involve the same individuals. In the RRI-Practice project, science education is defined through its target audience: students, teachers, or life-long learners. In practice, however, this criterion does not allow for a clear separation of this key from others. It emerges from our analysis that science education is often regarded as a standalone core activity of universities, and not as part of RRI. Moreover, the RRI-Practice reports describe educational activities with a particular emphasis on their institutional aspects but without a reflection on specific pedagogical methods. Such a reflection is all the more necessary at a time when science and technology provide innovative content while they also introduce new methods of teaching. In RPOs and RFOs, science education is driven by the understanding of a crucial role of science in societal progress and by the need to overcome the growing disinterest of schoolchildren in science. Alongside such drivers, there exist numerous barriers to science education, starting with a low appreciation of the need to involve researchers in educational activities, which are usually delegated to professional teachers. This translates in inadequate funding for science education at the national and organisational levels. The lack of incentives for researchers and the lack of training are widespread. In some regions, the existing mistrust in scientific research, particularly in areas such as nuclear technology, leads to the need to keep it separate from public education. Good organisational practices that have proven their efficiency include:
1) creating dedicated units or officers for science education within RPOs; 2) including educational activities in the evaluation of researchers; 3) creating special awards to raise the prestige of educational activities
At the international level, there is clear advantage among research organisations whose official government-defined mission includes contributing to the scientific education of their country. Countries with ministries jointly in charge of education and research have a better opportunity to realize such missions in practice.
This report provides a comparative analysis of 12 national reports about the conceptualizations a... more This report provides a comparative analysis of 12 national reports about the conceptualizations and organisational conditions and practices pertaining to the RRI key of ethics. Ethics in the RRI framework refers to: 1) research ethics (norms to be respected in the design of research projects and a reflection on the consequences of research projects); 2) scientific integrity (norms and standards which ought to be respected in scientific practice), and 3) a critical reflection on broader societal aspects of science and technology, including a reflection on values. The obligation to carry out research in accordance with national or international regulatory frameworks is the main driver of scientific integrity and research ethics. National and international reputation is also an important driver. The drivers for the critical reflection on the societal aspects of science and technology are mainly cultural: the growing concern of the publics about potential impacts of science and technology is playing a major role. That 'ethics' may mean different things, as well as the existence of a large number of concepts pertaining to ethical dimension of science and technology, can pose some barriers. The lack of clarity in the definition of 'ethics' and of its relation with other concepts may be related to researchers regarding ethics as a hurdle imposed by national or internal regulations. Thus research ethics is reduced to ticking boxes in checklists, as demanded by some bureaucratic organ. Good organisational practices that have proven their efficiency include: 1) creating clear and accessible guidelines on scientific integrity; 2) encouraging a two-way exchange between researchers and ethical committees in order to promote an organisational culture which includes research ethics in a meaningful way; 3) organizing training courses on the ethics of science for researchers and students, in order to stimulate individual reflection on the potential impacts of science and technology.
In his mature writings, Kuhn describes the process of specialisation as driven by a form of incom... more In his mature writings, Kuhn describes the process of specialisation as driven by a form of incommensurability, defined as a conceptual/linguistic barrier which promotes and guarantees the insularity of specialties. In this paper, we reject the idea that the incommensurability among scientific specialties is a linguistic barrier. We argue that the problem with Kuhn's characterization of the incommensurability among specialties is that he presupposes a rather abstract theory of semantic incommensurability, which he then try to apply to his description of the process of specialisation. By contrast, this paper follows a different strategy: after criticizing Kuhn's view, it takes a further look at how new scientific specialties emerge. As a result, a different way of understanding incommensurability among specialties will be proposed. Specialisation and the incommensurability among scientific specialties In his mature writings, Kuhn describes the process of specialisation as driven by a form of incommensurability, defined as a conceptual/linguistic barrier which promotes and guarantees the insularity of specialties. In this paper, we reject the idea that the incommensurability among scientific specialties is a linguistic barrier. We argue that the problem with Kuhn's characterisation of the incommensurability among specialties is that he presupposes a rather abstract theory of semantic incommensurability, which he then try to apply to his description of the process of specialisation. By contrast, this paper follows a different strategy: after criticising Kuhn's view, it takes a further look at how new scientific specialties emerge. As a result, a different way of understanding incommensurability among specialties will be proposed.
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2018
Incommensurability may be regarded as driving specialisation, on the one hand, and as posing some... more Incommensurability may be regarded as driving specialisation, on the one hand, and as posing some problems to interdisciplinarity, on the other hand. It may be argued, however, that incommensurability plays no role in either specialisation or interdisciplinarity. Scientific specialties could be defined as simply 'different' (that is, about different things), rather than 'incommensurable' (that is, competing for the explanation of the same phenomena). Interdisciplinarity could be viewed as the coordinated effort of scientists possessing complementary and interlocking skills, and not as the overcoming of some sort of incommensurable divide. This article provides a comprehensive evaluative examination of the relations between specialisation, interdisciplinarity, and incommensurability. Its aim is to defend the relevance of incommensurability to both specialisation and interdisciplinarity. At the same time, it aims at correcting the tendency, common among many philosophers, to regard incommensurability in a restrictive manner—such as, for example, as an almost purely semantic issue.
In his late years, Thomas Kuhn became interested in the process of scientific specialization, whi... more In his late years, Thomas Kuhn became interested in the process of scientific specialization, which does not seem to possess the destructive element that is characteristic of scientific revolutions. It therefore makes sense to investigate whether and how Kuhn's insights about specialization are consistent with, and actually fit, his model of scientific progress through revolutions. In this paper, I argue that the transition toward a new specialty corresponds to a revolutionary change for the group of scientists involved in such a transition. I will clarify the role of the scientific community in revolutionary changes and characterize the incommensurability across specialties as possessing both semantic and methodological aspects. The discussion of the discovery of the structure of DNA will serve both as an illustration of my main argument and as reply to one criticism raised against Kuhn – namely, that his model cannot capture cases of revolutionary yet non-disruptive episodes of scientific progress. Revisiting Kuhn's ideas on specialization will shed new light on some often overlooked features of scientific change.
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 2015
This is an early (and very badly edited) draft of a paper forthcoming in Studies in History and P... more This is an early (and very badly edited) draft of a paper forthcoming in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. The actual paper is available on line at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368115001375
Like many innovative technologies, AI possesses a transformational power: its implementation in s... more Like many innovative technologies, AI possesses a transformational power: its implementation in society is not a neutral additive process, but it may alter in significant ways various social and cultural dynamics. Socio-ethical concerns led to the demand of designing AI devices that can be 'trusted'. The recent publication of Machines we trust provides novel opportunities to discuss some socio-ethical issues arising from human-AI interactions. After defining the concepts of trust, trustworthiness, and reliability, and explaining in which sense it is possible to talk about 'trustworthy AI', I focus on two chapters of the volume that consider some concrete applications of AI. I conclude by suggesting that, instead of considering the different contributions to the volume in isolation with respect to one another, it may be illuminating to compare and contrast them. Such a way of reading the book leads us to question whether it is still possible to talk about trustworthy AI 'in general' or whether the discussion about the socio-ethical issues posed by AI should proceed in a piecemeal case-by-case fashion.
This is a pre-print version of a forthcoming book review (Metascience, doi: 10.1007/s11016-022-0... more This is a pre-print version of a forthcoming book review (Metascience, doi: 10.1007/s11016-022-00750-8) Book Review of K. Brad Wray (Ed.): Interpreting Kuhn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021, 263 pp, £75.00 HB
Martin Heidegger is often dismissed or even derided in the dominant Anglo-American 'analytic' phi... more Martin Heidegger is often dismissed or even derided in the dominant Anglo-American 'analytic' philosophy, yet his The Question concerning Technology (Heidegger, 1954, from now on: QCT) has become an essential reading in many introductory courses of philosophy of technology and STS. There is no doubt that QCT is one of Heidegger's most influential works, if not the most influential after Being and Time. Whether QCT could be of any actual use for contemporary philosophers of technology and STS scholars, however, is something which is not discussed too often. The publication of a monograph entirely devoted to Heidegger's view on technology can be a valuable opportunity to begin a reflection on these issues.
Depuis le début du programme H2020, la Commission promeut
et applique un cadre de politique scien... more Depuis le début du programme H2020, la Commission promeut et applique un cadre de politique scientifique de recherche et d’innovation responsables (RRI). Il vise à atteindre des résultats de recherche et d’innovation qui influenceront la société d’une manière durable et éthiquement souhaitable. Pour atteindre de tels objectifs, d’importants changements institutionnels, à la fois structurels et culturels, sont nécessaires.
Blog post on incommensurability and interdisciplinarity. A reconceptualization of incommensurabil... more Blog post on incommensurability and interdisciplinarity. A reconceptualization of incommensurability in interdisciplinary research. Incommensurability: 1) occurs when disciplines offer incompatible solutions to a common problem, preventing collaboration & integration, 2) needs a dynamic & historical perspective as disciplines may become incommensurable and 3) is not only a linguistic problem preventing successful communication; instead it can be agreeing to disagree. Avoid presupposing that disciplines are incommensurable or that they are complementary. Full post available at https://i2insights.org/2019/04/09/understanding-incommensurability/
Kuhn's analysis of the structure and function of the scientific community has been recently re-in... more Kuhn's analysis of the structure and function of the scientific community has been recently re-interpreted as a seminal contribution to the so-called social epistemology of science. Kuhn's social epistemology should be considered as part of a normative-descriptive philosophical framework in which epistemological, historical, sociological, and psychological elements are interconnected. In this chapter, I will compare Kuhn's seminal insights with two contemporary approaches to the social epistemology of science, namely: the development of idealised formal models of the scientific community and the use of qualitative studies for philosophical purposes. On the one hand, these contemporary approaches to social epistemology may be regarded as developing some of Kuhn's views in new and exciting ways. On the other hand, however, it is still not entirely clear which kind of general philosophical 'image of science' they are contributing to. This chapter, therefore, aims at illuminating how analysing some of the contemporary debates in social epistemology through the lenses of Kuhn's philosophy may recast under a new light the issue of the value of the study of the social dimension of scientific research for general philosophy of science.
Uploads
is defined through its target audience: students, teachers, or life-long learners. In practice, however, this criterion does not allow for a clear separation of this key from others.
It emerges from our analysis that science education is often regarded as a standalone core activity of universities, and not as part of RRI. Moreover, the RRI-Practice reports describe educational activities with a particular emphasis on their institutional aspects but without a reflection on specific
pedagogical methods. Such a reflection is all the more necessary at a time when science and technology provide innovative content while they also introduce new methods of teaching.
In RPOs and RFOs, science education is driven by the understanding of a crucial role of science in societal progress and by the need to overcome the growing disinterest of schoolchildren in science. Alongside such drivers, there exist numerous barriers to science education, starting with a low
appreciation of the need to involve researchers in educational activities, which are usually delegated to professional teachers. This translates in inadequate funding for science education at the national and organisational levels.
The lack of incentives for researchers and the lack of training are widespread. In some regions, the existing mistrust in scientific research, particularly in areas such as nuclear technology, leads to the need to keep it separate from public education.
Good organisational practices that have proven their efficiency include:
1) creating dedicated units or officers for science education within RPOs;
2) including educational activities in the evaluation of researchers;
3) creating special awards to raise the prestige of educational activities
At the international level, there is clear advantage among research organisations whose official government-defined mission includes contributing to the scientific education of their country. Countries with ministries jointly in charge of education and research have a better opportunity to realize such missions in practice.
is defined through its target audience: students, teachers, or life-long learners. In practice, however, this criterion does not allow for a clear separation of this key from others.
It emerges from our analysis that science education is often regarded as a standalone core activity of universities, and not as part of RRI. Moreover, the RRI-Practice reports describe educational activities with a particular emphasis on their institutional aspects but without a reflection on specific
pedagogical methods. Such a reflection is all the more necessary at a time when science and technology provide innovative content while they also introduce new methods of teaching.
In RPOs and RFOs, science education is driven by the understanding of a crucial role of science in societal progress and by the need to overcome the growing disinterest of schoolchildren in science. Alongside such drivers, there exist numerous barriers to science education, starting with a low
appreciation of the need to involve researchers in educational activities, which are usually delegated to professional teachers. This translates in inadequate funding for science education at the national and organisational levels.
The lack of incentives for researchers and the lack of training are widespread. In some regions, the existing mistrust in scientific research, particularly in areas such as nuclear technology, leads to the need to keep it separate from public education.
Good organisational practices that have proven their efficiency include:
1) creating dedicated units or officers for science education within RPOs;
2) including educational activities in the evaluation of researchers;
3) creating special awards to raise the prestige of educational activities
At the international level, there is clear advantage among research organisations whose official government-defined mission includes contributing to the scientific education of their country. Countries with ministries jointly in charge of education and research have a better opportunity to realize such missions in practice.
Book Review of K. Brad Wray (Ed.): Interpreting Kuhn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021, 263 pp, £75.00 HB
et applique un cadre de politique scientifique de recherche et
d’innovation responsables (RRI). Il vise à atteindre des résultats de
recherche et d’innovation qui influenceront la société d’une manière
durable et éthiquement souhaitable. Pour atteindre de tels objectifs,
d’importants changements institutionnels, à la fois structurels et
culturels, sont nécessaires.