Journal for General Philosophy of Science

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 129–151 | Cite as

Science and politics: Dangerous liaisons

  • Neven Sesardić
Articles

Summary

In contrast to the opinion of numerous authors (e.g. R. Rudner, P. Kitcher, L. R. Graham, M. Dummett, N. Chomsky, R. Lewontin, etc.) it is argued here that the formation of opinion in science should be greatly insulated from political considerations. Special attention is devoted to the view that methodological standards for evaluation of scientific theories ought to vary according to the envisaged political uses of these theories.

Key words

Science politics acceptance of theories dangerous knowledge self-censorship objectivity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barber, B.: 1952,Science and the Social Order, Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. Black, M.: 1978, ‘Scientific Neutrality’,Encounter, August.Google Scholar
  3. Blalock, C. H. M., Jr.: 1972,Social Statistics (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  4. Block, N. J. and G. Dworkin: ‘IQ, Heritability, and Inequality’, in N. Block and G. Dworkin (eds.),The IQ Controversy, New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  5. Caplan, A. L.: 1980, ‘A Critical Examination of Current Sociobiological Theory: Adequacy and Implications’, in G. W. Barlow and J. Silverberg (eds.),Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture, Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cargile, J.: 1966, ‘Pascal's Wager’,Philosophy 35.Google Scholar
  7. Ceci, S. J., D. Peters, and J. Plotkin: 1985, ‘Human Subjects Review, Personal Values, and the Regulation of Social Science Research’,American Psychologist 40.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N.: 1976, ‘The Fallacy of Richard Herrnstein's IQ’, in N. Block and G. Dworkin (eds.),The IQ Controversy, New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, B. D.: 1986,Storm Over Biology: Essays on Science, Sentiment, and Public Policy, Buffalo: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  10. Dummett, D.: 1981, ‘Ought Research to Be Unrestricted?’,Grazer Philosophische Studien 12–13.Google Scholar
  11. Elster, J. 1984,Ulysses and the Sirens, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Frankel C. (ed.): 1976,Controversies and Decisions, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  13. Gaa, J. G.: 1977, ‘Moral Autonomy and the Rationality of Science’,Philosophy of Science 44.Google Scholar
  14. Gordon, R. A.: 1987, ‘Jensen's Contributions Concerning Test Bias: A Contextual View’, in S. Modgil and C. Modgil (eds.),Arthur Jensen: Consensus and Controversy, New York, Philadelphia &, London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gould, S. J.: 1981,The Mismeasure of Man, Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  16. Gould, S. J.: 1987, ‘Jensen's Last Stand’, in hisAn Urchin in the Storm, New York & London: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  17. Graham, L. R.: 1981,Between Science and Values, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hacking, I.: 1975,The Emergence of Probability, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Henkel, R.: 1978,The Tests of Significance, Beverly Hills: The Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Jensen, A. R.: 1969, ‘How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement’,Harvard Educational Review 39.Google Scholar
  21. Jensen, A. R.: 1972,Genetics and Education, London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  22. Jensen, A. R.: 1973, ‘Between-groups Heritability’, in hisEducability and Group Differences, London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  23. Jensen, A. R.: 1976, ‘Race and Intelligence: A Reply to Lewontin’, in N. Block and G. Dworkin (eds.),The IQ Controversy, New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  24. Jensen, A. R.: 1981, ‘Obstacles, Problems, and Pitfalls in Differential Psychology’, in Scarr (1981).Google Scholar
  25. Kamin, L. J.: 1974,The Science and Politics of I.Q., Potomac: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Kantrowitz, A.: 1975, ‘Controlling Technology Democratically’,American Scientist 63.Google Scholar
  27. Kitcher, P.: 1985,Vaulting Ambition, Cambridge, Mass. & London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Ladd, E. C. Jr. & S. M. Lipset: 1975,The Divided Academy: Professors and Politics, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  29. Mackie, J. L.: 1982,The Miracle of Theism, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  30. Martin, N. and R. Jardine: 1986, ‘Eysenck's Contributions to Behaviour Genetics’, in S. Modgil and C. Modgil (eds.),Hans Eysenck: Consensus and Controversy, Philadelphia & London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  31. Mazur, A.: 1981,The Dynamics of Technical Controversy, Washington: Communications Press.Google Scholar
  32. Richardson, R. C.: 1984, ‘Biology and Ideology: The Interpenetration of Science and Values’,Philosophy of Science 51.Google Scholar
  33. Rose, S., R. Lewontin and L. J. Kamin: 1984,Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature, Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  34. Rudner, R.: 1953, ‘The ScientistQua Scientist Makes value Judgments:Philosophy of Science 20.Google Scholar
  35. Scarr, S.: 1981,Race, Social Class, and Individual Differences in I.Q., Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Snyderman M. and S. Rothman: 1986, ‘Science, Politics, and the IQ Controversy’,Public Interest, Spring, pp. 79–97.Google Scholar
  37. Snyderman M. & S. Rothman: 1987, ‘Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence and Aptitude Testing’,American Psychologist 42.Google Scholar
  38. Stent, G. S.: 1978,Paradoxes of Progress, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  39. Wade, N.: 1978, ‘Sociobiology: Troubled Birth for New Discipline’, in A. Caplan (ed.),Sociobiology Debate, New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  40. Watson, J. D.: 1986, ‘Biology: A Necessary Limitless Vista’, in S. Rose & L. Appignanesi (eds.),Science and Beyond, Oxford & London: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neven Sesardić

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations