重点介绍。实用主义和专业哲学

IF 0.2 0 PHILOSOPHY Philosophical Inquiries Pub Date : 2020-07-20 DOI:10.4454/PHILINQ.V8I2.302
R. Gronda
{"title":"重点介绍。实用主义和专业哲学","authors":"R. Gronda","doi":"10.4454/PHILINQ.V8I2.302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scientific expertise is a most distinguishing feature of contemporary societies. There is likely not a single relevant problem affecting our communities that does not present some sort of entanglement between societal and scientific or technological components. The enormous complexity of public problems requires that all the best knowledge available be gathered and used in making decisions about which policy is preferable. Accordingly, the role of scientific experts comes to the fore, alongside the concerns that the extensive reliance on expertise may conflict with democratic principles and values. Though in recent years the problem of scientific expertise has received considerable attention from sociologists, political scientists, and communication scholars, the philosophy of scientific expertise is still a relatively inchoate field of inquiry. The present issue aims to develop some conceptual tools for analyzing and clarifying the notion of scientific expertise, as well as for understanding the role of scientific experts within the processes of democratic deliberation and the relationships between scientists, scientific experts and citizens. The four essays presented here differ in many respects, but they share a commitment to pragmatism as an approach to social epistemology and philosophy of science. Pragmatism is less a set of substantive ideas than a method for reformulating philosophical problems. The insistence on the centrality of the category of practice; the primacy of context over philosophical abstraction; the semantic function of the pragmatic maxim; the rejection of the fact-value distinction; the adoption of a transactional perspective on epistemological and ontological questions; these are the pillars of the pragmatist philosophical methodology. The Focus originates from an international workshop on the philosophy of expertise held in Pisa on November 29, 2019, with participants coming from Europe and the US. The articles selected for this Focus were originally presented at the workshop, and then further elaborated in the light of the subsequent discussion. I hope that the essays here collected may help to contribute to the ongoing debate over the notion of scientific expertise, so as to establish pragmatist philosophy of scientific expertise as a distinctive and easily recognizable line of thought.","PeriodicalId":41386,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Inquiries","volume":"19 1","pages":"109-110"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Focus Introduction. Pragmatism and the philosophy of expertise\",\"authors\":\"R. Gronda\",\"doi\":\"10.4454/PHILINQ.V8I2.302\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Scientific expertise is a most distinguishing feature of contemporary societies. There is likely not a single relevant problem affecting our communities that does not present some sort of entanglement between societal and scientific or technological components. The enormous complexity of public problems requires that all the best knowledge available be gathered and used in making decisions about which policy is preferable. Accordingly, the role of scientific experts comes to the fore, alongside the concerns that the extensive reliance on expertise may conflict with democratic principles and values. Though in recent years the problem of scientific expertise has received considerable attention from sociologists, political scientists, and communication scholars, the philosophy of scientific expertise is still a relatively inchoate field of inquiry. The present issue aims to develop some conceptual tools for analyzing and clarifying the notion of scientific expertise, as well as for understanding the role of scientific experts within the processes of democratic deliberation and the relationships between scientists, scientific experts and citizens. The four essays presented here differ in many respects, but they share a commitment to pragmatism as an approach to social epistemology and philosophy of science. Pragmatism is less a set of substantive ideas than a method for reformulating philosophical problems. The insistence on the centrality of the category of practice; the primacy of context over philosophical abstraction; the semantic function of the pragmatic maxim; the rejection of the fact-value distinction; the adoption of a transactional perspective on epistemological and ontological questions; these are the pillars of the pragmatist philosophical methodology. The Focus originates from an international workshop on the philosophy of expertise held in Pisa on November 29, 2019, with participants coming from Europe and the US. The articles selected for this Focus were originally presented at the workshop, and then further elaborated in the light of the subsequent discussion. I hope that the essays here collected may help to contribute to the ongoing debate over the notion of scientific expertise, so as to establish pragmatist philosophy of scientific expertise as a distinctive and easily recognizable line of thought.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophical Inquiries\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"109-110\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophical Inquiries\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4454/PHILINQ.V8I2.302\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Inquiries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4454/PHILINQ.V8I2.302","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

科学专长是当代社会最显著的特征。影响我们社会的任何一个相关问题,都可能在社会和科学或技术组成部分之间存在某种纠缠。公共问题的巨大复杂性要求收集所有可用的最佳知识,并将其用于决定哪种政策更可取。因此,科学专家的作用凸显出来,同时人们还担心,广泛依赖专业知识可能与民主原则和价值观相冲突。尽管近年来,科学专家的问题受到了社会学家、政治学家和传播学者的相当大的关注,但科学专家的哲学仍然是一个相对早期的研究领域。本期的目的是发展一些概念性工具,以分析和澄清科学专门知识的概念,并了解科学专家在民主审议过程中的作用以及科学家、科学专家和公民之间的关系。这里提出的四篇论文在许多方面有所不同,但它们都致力于将实用主义作为社会认识论和科学哲学的一种方法。实用主义与其说是一套实质性的思想,不如说是一种重新表述哲学问题的方法。坚持实践范畴的中心性;语境对哲学抽象的首要地位;论语用格言的语义功能对事实-价值区分的否定;在认识论和本体论问题上采用交易视角;这些都是实用主义哲学方法论的支柱。焦点源于2019年11月29日在比萨举行的专业哲学国际研讨会,参与者来自欧洲和美国。本专题所选的文章最初是在讲习班上提出的,然后根据随后的讨论作了进一步阐述。我希望这里收集的文章可以对正在进行的关于科学专业知识概念的辩论有所帮助,从而将科学专业知识的实用主义哲学建立为一种独特而易于识别的思想路线。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Focus Introduction. Pragmatism and the philosophy of expertise
Scientific expertise is a most distinguishing feature of contemporary societies. There is likely not a single relevant problem affecting our communities that does not present some sort of entanglement between societal and scientific or technological components. The enormous complexity of public problems requires that all the best knowledge available be gathered and used in making decisions about which policy is preferable. Accordingly, the role of scientific experts comes to the fore, alongside the concerns that the extensive reliance on expertise may conflict with democratic principles and values. Though in recent years the problem of scientific expertise has received considerable attention from sociologists, political scientists, and communication scholars, the philosophy of scientific expertise is still a relatively inchoate field of inquiry. The present issue aims to develop some conceptual tools for analyzing and clarifying the notion of scientific expertise, as well as for understanding the role of scientific experts within the processes of democratic deliberation and the relationships between scientists, scientific experts and citizens. The four essays presented here differ in many respects, but they share a commitment to pragmatism as an approach to social epistemology and philosophy of science. Pragmatism is less a set of substantive ideas than a method for reformulating philosophical problems. The insistence on the centrality of the category of practice; the primacy of context over philosophical abstraction; the semantic function of the pragmatic maxim; the rejection of the fact-value distinction; the adoption of a transactional perspective on epistemological and ontological questions; these are the pillars of the pragmatist philosophical methodology. The Focus originates from an international workshop on the philosophy of expertise held in Pisa on November 29, 2019, with participants coming from Europe and the US. The articles selected for this Focus were originally presented at the workshop, and then further elaborated in the light of the subsequent discussion. I hope that the essays here collected may help to contribute to the ongoing debate over the notion of scientific expertise, so as to establish pragmatist philosophy of scientific expertise as a distinctive and easily recognizable line of thought.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Commentary to B. William’s French introduction to "Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy" Sonic obstacles and conceptual nostalgia: Preliminary considerations on musical conceptualism and contemporary art Intergenerational aesthetics: A future-oriented approach to aesthetic theory and practice Presentism and the Pain of the Past: A Reply to Orilia “Who inspires who?” Aesthetics in front of AI art
×
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