One of the biggest concerns that social and political movements from the last couple of months have had is how to reestablish a shared epistemological framework. This was prominently on display in the March for Science on April 22 and the People’s Climate March on April 29. While such frameworks have been dangerous in the past, the vast number of researchers I’ve encountered (and, if polls are to be believed, the vast number of people in society) believe it is better to have one than not. As the author of a post later today will argue, these are dangerous times to advocate for a fluid and changeable concept of truth.
Of course, saying we need a shared epistemology begs the question of what it should be. How do we build a collective understanding of truth in our diverse world which has had many different epistemologies over time? In respect of the many people who marched for science and respect for empirical research over the last few weeks, here are some articles that can contribute to that discussion.
- Joseph Agassi, “Honesty Still Is the Best Policy,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences, September 2014.
- Elif Kale-Lostuvali, “Two Sociologies of Science in Search of Truth: Bourdieu Versus Latour,” Social Epistemology, May 2016.
- Paul Armstrong and Marion Blute, “Reports of the Death of the Sociology of Science Have Been Greatly Exaggerated,” Canadian Review of Sociology, November 2010.
- Kristina Rolin, “Values, standpoints, and scientific/intellectual movements,” Studies in History & Philosophy of Science, April 2016.
- Yael Keshet, “Classification systems in the light of sociology of knowledge,” Journal of Documentation, 2011.
*
Have a suggestion for the What Are You Reading column? Contact us here.
