Knowledge and Human Interests: An Inquiry about the Relation between the Two Categories

Document Type : The Quarterly Jornal

Authors

1 PhD student, Iranian Institute of Wisdom and Philosophy, the Department of Science Studies, Iran, Tehran

2 Assistant professor, National Research Institute for Science Policy, the group of popularization of science, Iran, Tehran

Abstract

This essay deals with one of the most controversial issues in contemporary epistemology and philosophy of science, i.e. the relationship between ‘human interests’ and ‘knowledge,’ particularly ‘scientific knowledge’ (SK), and aims to present a tenable model of this relation. First, three different models will be discussed and criticized: the ‘transcendental’ relation between interests and knowledge (Habermas), the one-sided ‘constructive’ relation (Strong Program), and the two-sided ‘constructed’ relation (Actor-Network theory). In our view, each of them suffers from some serious shortcomings, which should be resolved in a satisfactory manner. Secondly, based on some useful achievements in contemporary philosophy of science, we will put forward a new model of the relationship between interests and SK within a general ‘decisionistic’ framework, which seems to be immune to the foregoing criticism, and explain more realistically the actual situations of scientific actions. In this theory, in a nutshell, as merely one of the key factors in a complex, contingent collection of ‘decision vectors,’ interests could contribute into the process of scientific decisions.

Keywords

References

1. Barnes, Barry (1977), Interests and the Growth of Knowledge, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
2. Barnes, Barry and MacKenzie, Donald (1979), ‘‘On the role of interests in scientific change,’’ in Roy Wallis (ed.), On the Margins of Science: The Social Construction of Rejected Knowledge, Sociological Review Monograph, No. 27, Keele: University of Keele.
3. Bloor, David (1991), [1976], Knowledge and Social Imagery (2nd edition), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. _________ (1999), ‘‘Anti-Latour,’’ Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci., Vol. 30, No.
5. Callon, Michel and Law, John (1982), ‘‘On interests and their transformation: enrolment and counter-enrolment,’’ Social Studies of Science, No. 12.
6. Giere, Ronald N. (1988), Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach, University of Chicago Press.
7. Habermas, Jürgen (1987) [1986], Knowledge and Human Interests, Boston: Polity Press.
8. Latour, Bruno (1993), We Have Never Been Modern, Translated by Porter, Catherine, Harvard University Press.
9. __________ (1992), ‘‘One more turn after the social turn…,’’ in E. McMullin (ed.), TheSocial Dimension of Science, Notre Dame: Indiana University of Notre Dame Press.
10. Longino, H. E. (2002), The Fate of Knowledge, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
11. Pickering, Andrew (ed.) (1992), Science as Practice and Culture, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
12. Sismondo, Sergio (2010), An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies, Blackwell Publishing.
13. Solomon, Miriam (2001), Social Empiricism, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Woolgar, Steve (1981), ‘‘Interests and explanation in the social study of science,’’ Social Studies of Science, No.11.
15. __________ (1993) [1988], Science: the very idea, London New York: Routledge.
16. Yearley, Steven (1982), ‘‘The relationship between epistemological and sociological cognitive interests,’’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, No. 13: p.353-88.
17. __________ (2005), Making Sense of Science: Understanding the Social Study of Science, SAGE Publications.
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics