Journal for General Philosophy of Science

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 113–123

The Art of Being Human: A Project for General Philosophy of Science

Article

Abstract

Throughout the medieval and modern periods, in various sacred and secular guises, the unification of all forms of knowledge under the rubric of ‘science’ has been taken as the prerogative of humanity as a species. However, as our sense of species privilege has been called increasingly into question, so too has the very salience of ‘humanity’ and ‘science’ as general categories, let alone ones that might bear some essential relationship to each other. After showing how the ascendant Stanford School in the philosophy of science has contributed to this joint demystification of ‘humanity’ and ‘science’, I proceed on a more positive note to a conceptual framework for making sense of science as the art of being human. My understanding of ‘science’ is indebted to the red thread that runs from Christian theology through the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment to the Humboldtian revival of the university as the site for the synthesis of knowledge as the culmination of self-development. Especially salient to this idea is science‘s epistemic capacity to manage modality (i.e. to determine the conditions under which possibilities can be actualised) and its political capacity to organize humanity into projects of universal concern. However, the challenge facing such an ideal in the twentyfirst century is that the predicate ‘human’ may be projected in three quite distinct ways, governed by what I call ‘ecological’, ‘biomedical’ and ‘cybernetic’ interests. Which one of these future humanities would claim today’s humans as proper ancestors and could these futures co-habit the same world thus become two important questions that general philosophy of science will need to address in the coming years.

Keywords

Humanity Modality Epistemic justice Projectibility Social epistemology 

References

  1. Blumenberg, H. (1983). The legitimacy of the modern age. (Orig. 1966). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cochrane, A. (2010). Undignified bioethics. Bioethics, 24(5), 234–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fuller, S. (1988). Social epistemology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Fuller, S. (2000). Thomas Kuhn: A philosophical history for our times. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fuller, S. (2006a). The new sociological imagination. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Fuller, S. (2006b). The philosophy of science and technology studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Fuller, S. (2007a). The knowledge book: Key concepts in philosophy, science and culture. Durham: Acumen.Google Scholar
  9. Fuller, S. (2007b). Science vs religion?. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  10. Fuller, S. (2007c). New frontiers in science and technology studies. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  11. Fuller, S. (2008a). The normative turn: Counterfactuals and a philosophical historiography of science. Isis, 99, 576–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fuller, S. (2008b). Dissent over descent. Cambridge: Icon.Google Scholar
  13. Fuller, S. (2010a). Science: The art of living. Durham: Acumen.Google Scholar
  14. Fuller, S. (2010b). Capitalism and knowledge: The university between commodification and entrepreneurship. In H. Radder (Ed.), The commodification of academic research: Science and the modern university (pp. 277–306). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fuller, S. (2011). Humanity 2.0: The past, present and future of what it means to be human. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Galison, P., & Stump, D. (Eds.). (1996). The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goodman, N. (1955). Fact, fiction and forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Humphreys, P. (2004). Extending ourselves: Computational science, empiricism and the scientific method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd edn.) (Orig. 1962). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kurzweil, R. (1999). The age of spiritual machines. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  22. Laudan, L. (1981). Science and hypothesis. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  23. Longino, H. (2001). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. McConkey, J. (2004). Knowledge and acknowledgement: “Epistemic injustice” as a problem of recognition. Politics, 24(3), 198–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Noble, D. (1997). The religion of technology: The divinity of man and the spirit of invention. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
  26. Pichot, A. (2009). The pure society: From Darwin to Hitler. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  27. Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Popper, K. (1981). The rationality of scientific revolutions. In I. Hacking (Ed.), Scientific revolutions (pp. 80–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Rescher, N. (1998). Predicting the future. Albany NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  30. Rescher, N. (1999). The limits of science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sarton, G. (1924). The new humanism. Isis, 6, 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schlick, M. (1974). The general theory of knowledge (Orig. 1925). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Singer, P. (1999). A Darwinian left. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  34. Stanford, P. K. (2006). Exceeding our grasp. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. The Economist. (2010). This house believes the development of computing was the most significant technological advance of the 20th century. On-line debate, October 19–29. http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/598#mod_module.
  36. Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of the social sciences. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations