The balance between critical thinking and paradigm thinking in the Arctic: Scientific cooperation across theoretical divides

IF 1.4 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ECOLOGY Polar Record Pub Date : 2023-01-30 DOI:10.1017/S0032247422000377
M. Coote
{"title":"The balance between critical thinking and paradigm thinking in the Arctic: Scientific cooperation across theoretical divides","authors":"M. Coote","doi":"10.1017/S0032247422000377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Kuhnian’ paradigms are a commonly used method of explaining the structure of knowledge production within the social sciences; however, in some ways, they are also in opposition with Popperian’ critical thinking. The opposing approaches surmount to a comparative analytic method – Kuhn advocates undertaking science that is incommensurable, discipline-specific and ideologically and metaphysically fixed in nature; whilst Popper advocates science that is pluralistic, rebellious, interdisciplinary, and ideologically and metaphysically adaptable. This article utilises a systematic literature review of key peer-reviewed articles, book chapters and online articles from respected sources relating to Arctic scientific cooperation during and since the Cold War in order to provide a qualitative data source for comparative theoretical analysis. This article analyses key trends in Arctic environmental decision-making since the Cold War utilising a comparative critical constructivist framework based on epistemological challenges visible in the “Science Wars” between Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper. By applying two of the foundations of social science (critical thinking and paradigms) to Arctic International Relations and Geopolitics, this article assesses the state of Arctic science cooperation and; the potential for Arctic science cooperation to solve wicked environmental problems. The article concludes that there are power relationships within the epistemological background to environmental decision-making which impacts science cooperation in the Arctic and; current trends in Arctic decision-making further propels the Arctic along a trajectory of environmental degradation.","PeriodicalId":49685,"journal":{"name":"Polar Record","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polar Record","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247422000377","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Kuhnian’ paradigms are a commonly used method of explaining the structure of knowledge production within the social sciences; however, in some ways, they are also in opposition with Popperian’ critical thinking. The opposing approaches surmount to a comparative analytic method – Kuhn advocates undertaking science that is incommensurable, discipline-specific and ideologically and metaphysically fixed in nature; whilst Popper advocates science that is pluralistic, rebellious, interdisciplinary, and ideologically and metaphysically adaptable. This article utilises a systematic literature review of key peer-reviewed articles, book chapters and online articles from respected sources relating to Arctic scientific cooperation during and since the Cold War in order to provide a qualitative data source for comparative theoretical analysis. This article analyses key trends in Arctic environmental decision-making since the Cold War utilising a comparative critical constructivist framework based on epistemological challenges visible in the “Science Wars” between Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper. By applying two of the foundations of social science (critical thinking and paradigms) to Arctic International Relations and Geopolitics, this article assesses the state of Arctic science cooperation and; the potential for Arctic science cooperation to solve wicked environmental problems. The article concludes that there are power relationships within the epistemological background to environmental decision-making which impacts science cooperation in the Arctic and; current trends in Arctic decision-making further propels the Arctic along a trajectory of environmental degradation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
北极地区批判性思维和范式思维之间的平衡:跨越理论鸿沟的科学合作
摘要Kuhnian范式是社会科学中解释知识生产结构的常用方法;然而,在某些方面,他们也与波普尔的批判思想相悖。相反的方法超越了比较分析方法——库恩主张从事不可通约的、学科特定的、意识形态和形而上学固定在本质上的科学;波普尔提倡多元、反叛、跨学科、思想和形而上学相适应的科学。本文对冷战期间和冷战以来与北极科学合作有关的重要同行评审文章、书籍章节和在线文章进行了系统的文献综述,为比较理论分析提供了定性数据来源。本文基于托马斯·库恩和卡尔·波普尔之间的“科学战争”中可见的认识论挑战,利用比较批判性建构主义框架分析了冷战以来北极环境决策的主要趋势。本文将社会科学的两个基础(批判性思维和范式)应用于北极国际关系和地缘政治,评估了北极科学合作的现状;北极科学合作解决恶劣环境问题的潜力。文章认为,环境决策在认识论背景下存在着影响北极科学合作的权力关系;当前北极决策的趋势进一步推动北极沿着环境退化的轨道发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Polar Record
Polar Record 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
25.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Polar Record is an international, peer-reviewed scholarly periodical publishing results from a wide range of polar research areas. The journal covers original primary research papers in the humanities, social sciences, physical sciences, life sciences, and polar technology, as well as papers concerning current political, economic, legal, and environmental issues in the Arctic or Antarctic. Polar Record endeavours to provide rapid publication, normally within nine months of initial submission.
期刊最新文献
British sailor or Inuk? A reappraisal of the ancestry of human skeletal remains found in 1949 by Henry Larsen, Cape Felix, King William Island Blubber for Bibles: translating colonialism in Inuit missions, c. 1750–1850 “A romance based on information”: The curious case of Clements Markham’s Franklin Expedition novel Discovery of some initial sketches and notes for William Scoresby Junior’s An Account of the Arctic Regions Scoping Arctic expertise: The mismatch between traditional theories of expertise and Indigenous expertise
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1