Abstract
Any overview of the philosophy of science would not be complete without covering these recent views as they have received a lot of attention in the past few decades. Many of these views are quite controversial on a number of dimensions—sometimes the criticism is that these views are meaningless or at a minimum obscurantist (see the so-called Sokal affair that will be discussed below); sometimes the claim is that they are unfairly and unduly incendiary—for example, a prominent feminist critic of science Harding (1986) has called Newton’s classic Principia “a rape manual” because “science is the male rape of female nature”; and of course sometimes the criticism is simply that they are wrong.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Brown, J. R. (2001). Who rules in science? An opinionated guide to the wars. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Cahoone, L. E. (2003). From modernism to postmodernism: An anthology expanded. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of the self and of morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47(4), 481–517.
Gross, P. R., & Levitt, N. (1997). Higher superstition: The academic left and its quarrels with science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Harding, S. G. (1986). The Science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Klein, D. B., & Stern, C. (2009). By the numbers: The ideological profile of professors, In R. Maranto, R. E. Redding & F. M. Hess (Eds.), The politically correct university problems, scope, and reforms (pp. 15–34). Washington, D.C.: AEI Press.
Koertge, N. (1998). A house built on sand: exposing postmodernist myths about science. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on Moral Development: The Philosophy of Moral Development (Vol. I). San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The post-modern condition: A report on knowledge. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
O’Donohue, W., & Dyslin, C. (1996). Abortion, boxing and Zionism: Politics and the APA. New Ideas in Psychology, 14, 1–10.
Redding, R. E. (2001). Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism. American Psychologist, 56, 205–215.
Rothman, S., Lichter, S. R., & Nevitte, N. (2005). Politics and professional advancement among college faculty. Forum, 3(1), 1–22.
Schiebinger, L. (1999). Has feminism changed science? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sokal, A. (1996). Transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text, 46, 217–252.
Windschuttle, K. (2000). The killing of history. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
O’Donohue, W. (2013). Post-Modernism, Social Constructionism, and the Science Wars. In: Clinical Psychology and the Philosophy of Science. Springer, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00185-2_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00185-2_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-00184-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-00185-2
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)