“Controversy”

Abstract

Controversies are pervasive in the history of science. History is thus here also at odds with science's images. According to both traditional and contemporary views of science, there are no scientific controversies sui generis. In traditional images of science controversies are external to science proper; in some contemporary views nothing about controversies in science specifically distinguishes them from controversies in other domains. According to one traditional image, science progresses from common ground to conclusions according to secure procedures such that there is no place for disagreement nor, therefore, for controversy. According to another traditional image of science, there are no such secure procedures. On the contrary: one does and even should jump to conclusions. Whereas here subsequent criticism is called for, it seems that controversy is not. This image is built on the assumption that refutations are clear cut, so that producing a valid refutation does not require a lengthy exchange of arguments.

Escudriñando la razón: naturaleza y propósitos de la ciencia

“…Al margen de sus diferencias, lo mismo los historiadores que los sociólogos -además de los filósofospusieron atención en las controversias científicas, tanto para corroborar el principio de simetría como para colocar la ciencia en contexto. Varios estudios han analizado a detalle controversias del pasado y el presente, al considerarlas características cruciales del proceso de producción científica (Dascal, 1998;Engelhardt y Caplan, 1987;Freudenthal, 1998). Han sido, desde entonces, una herramienta importante para el estudio de la formación, evolución y evaluación del conocimiento científico, lo que, por un lado, ha evidenciado la dialéctica constante entre ciencia y sociedad y, por otro, ha puesto en entredicho que la construcción de consensos sea una tarea sencilla consistente únicamente en la comprobación experimental de una hipótesis.…”

An even-handed debate? The sexed/gendered controversy over laterality genes in British psychology, 1970s–1990s

“…: 12), and the merit of a scientific theory seldom determined the success of such attacks or defences. More often than not, scientists settled conflicts according to implicit criteria and hidden assumptions (Baltas, 2000) as well as political, social, cultural, moral, and economic power structures (Freudenthal, 1998; Mamiani, 2000; Mendelsohn, 1987; Shapin, 1975).…”

Why was there no controversy over life in the Scientific Revolution?

“…To follow Stahl's suggestion, we could say that Life is either discussed but immediately dissipated into the entities and processes which subserve it, or promoted to the extent that vital spirits, vital heat, and animation are so coextensive to the field of investigation that Life as problem again dissipates into the analysis as a whole. There is discussion, but no controversy, in the sense that there is no polarization between Life and non-Life (with the notable exception of Stahl in his polemic with Leibniz, which I shall turn to in section 2), nor the possibility of resolution between two positions, which implies some shared conceptual framework (Freudenthal 1998 call final cause -is nothing but a human appetite‖ -the causes of which we tend to be unaware of (Spinoza 1675(Spinoza /2002 One can see why Stahl protested that Life had vanished from the bio-medical purview! Indeed, in a kind of unconscious echo of Stahl's concerns, Boerhaave declared in a much-cited lecture on the -use of mechanical methods in medicine‖ that -the human body is in its nature the same as the whole of the Universe‖ (Boerhaave 1703(Boerhaave /1983, which I take less as a…”