Advertisement

Science in the Context of Application: Methodological Change, Conceptual Transformation, Cultural Reorientation

  • Martin Carrier
  • Alfred Nordmann
Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 274)

Abstract

The heavy application pressure under which science operates, its increased dependency on technical apparatus for experimentation, visualization, and modelling, and its technological ambitions to manage the complexities of highly developed societies have prompted claims to the effect that science as such has undergone a profound methodological and institutional transformation during the past decades. Application-oriented research is not the same as “applied science” in that it does not consist in the transfer of basic knowledge to practical challenges. Instead, application-oriented research emphasizes intervention to the point that theoretical representation may be receding into the background. Shaping the world, rather than understanding it, appears to be the chief objective of contemporary science. The contributions to the volume attempt to identify, explore and assess the changing conditions of scientific research. The three central questions asked are: Does science proceed differently, and if so, how? Does science affect society differently, and if so, how? Is science conceived differently, and if so, how?

Keywords

Commercialize Research Technical Apparatus Theoretical Integration Theoretical Representation Institutional Transformation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Carrier, M. 2004. Knowledge gain and practical use: Models in pure and applied research. In Laws and Models in Science, ed. D. Gillies, 1–17. London: King’s College Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Carrier, M. 2008. Science in the grip of the economy: On the epistemic impact of the commercialization of research. In The Challenge of the Social and the Pressure of Practice: Science and Values Revisited, eds. M. Carrier, D. Howard, and J. Kourany, 217–234. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  3. Concar, D. 2002. Corporate science v the right to know. New Scientist, March 16, 2002.Google Scholar
  4. Gibbons, M., et al. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Sciences. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Gibson, E., F. Baylis, and S. Lewis. 2002. Dances with the pharmaceutical industry. Canadian Medical Association Journal 166:448–452.Google Scholar
  6. Humphreys, P. 2004. Extending Ourselves. Computational Science, Empiricism, and Scientific Method. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Kitcher, P. 2004. On the autonomy of the sciences. Philosophy Today 48 (Supplement):51–57.Google Scholar
  8. Koertge, N. 2000. Science, values, and the value of science. Philosophy of Science 67 (Proceedings):S45–S57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Koertge, N. 2003. Feminist values and the value of science. In Scrutinizing Feminist Epistemology. An Examination of Gender in Science, eds. C.L. Pinnick, N. Koertge, and R.F. Almeder, 222–233. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lenhard, J. 2006. Surprised by a Nanowire: Simulation, control, and understanding. Philosophy of Science (Supplement) 73:S605–S616.Google Scholar
  11. Lenhard, J. 2007. Computer simulation: The cooperation between experimenting and modeling. Philosophy of Science 74:176–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Merton, R.K. 1942 [1973]. The normative structure of science. In The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, eds. R.K. Merton, 267–278. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Nordmann, A. 2006. Collapse of distance: Epistemic strategies of science and technoscience. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy 41:7–34.Google Scholar
  14. Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2001. Rethinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  15. Polanyi, M. 1962. Personal Knowledge. Towards a Post-critical Philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  16. Stokes, D.E. 1997. Pasteur’s Quadrant. Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
  17. Winsberg, E. 2003. Simulated experiments: Methodology for a virtual world. Philosophy of Science 70:105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wray, K.B. 2002. The epistemic significance of collaborative research. Philosophy of Science 69:150–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyInstitute for Science and Technology Studies, Bielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyDarmstadt Technical UniversityDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations