Defending Longinos Social Epistemology :: Science Scientific Philosophical Papers

Defending Longinos Social Epistemology (1)ABSTRACT Though many agree that we guide to draw for the role that loving factors figure out in inquiry, developing a viable social epistemology has proved to be a difficult task. concord to Longino, it is the processes that make inquiry possible that be aptly described as social, for they require a number of people to sustain them. These processes not only despatch inquiry, but also ensure that the results of inquiry be more than classic subjective opinions, and thus deserve to be called knowledge. In this paper, I explain Longinos epistemology and defend it against criticisms recently raised by Kitcher, Schmitt and Solomon. Longino justifiedly recognizes that not all social factors take away the same (adverse) effect on inquiry. She also recommends that we reconceptualize knowledge, distinguishing knowledge from opinion by reference to a social standard. Though it is agreed that epistemologists need to account for the role soci al factors play in inquiry, developing a viable social epistemology has proved to be a difficult task. According to Longino, it is the processes that make inquiry possible that are social, requiring a number of people to sustain them. These processes, she claims, not only facilitate inquiry, but also ensure that the results of inquiry are more than mere subjective opinions, and thus deserve to be called knowledge. Here, I want to twain explain and defend Longinos epistemology.ILongino defines her account of scientific knowledge sexual relation to positivist and wholist accounts. Though many regard positivism as offering an untenable account of science, because no comparable sweeping and detailed philosophical view has replaced it, Longino believes that it still needs to be reckoned with (L1990, 21). Wholists are significant because they have been the greatest critics of positivism. After presenting these accounts, and explaining the difficulties that Longino has with them, I will present Longinos own account of scientific knowledge and inquiry.This discussion focuses on two issues the relationship amid evidence and hypotheses and, the role of contextual get in inquiry. Longino contrasts contextual determine with constitutive values. The latter, the values generated from an understanding of the goals of scientific inquiry, are the source of the rules find out what constitutes acceptable scientific practice or scientific method (L1990, 4). That these values influence inquiry is not a problem. But the former, personal, social, and cultural values, are thought to threaten the integrity of scientific inquiry (L1990, 4-5).According to positivists, the total base of inquiry, the source of confirming or disconfirming instances, is a set of .