(1997). An historical holistic thread in the dynamical fabric of psychology. World Futures: Vol. 49, The Dialatic of Evolution: Essays in Honor of David Loye, pp. 159-201.

Abstract Psychology's goal has been to become a science, taking the modern natural sciences as the model. It has not been understood that each science undergoes a transition from early disunification to later unification, that a fundmental dimension is involved that differentiates sciences. Psychology is a modern disunified science, distinguished by its chaotic knowledge and ways of operating. A philosophy of science based on modem unified science, as philosophies generally are, is inappropriate as a means of understanding psychology or of (...) guiding its development. We need a philosophy to describe the special problems of theory construction of modern disunified sciences, and to advance paths by which to work on those problems. Theory tasks to be undertaken in large quantities range from articles to reduce artificial diversity to the construction of grand unified theory. Psychology must begin those tasks, and it must understand its characteristics as a modern disunified science, if it is to make good decisions concerning its development and organization. Otherwise it will continue on its path towards fragmentation, an impenetrable obstacle to full development as a science and a profession. (shrink)

This essay situates Wittgenstein's Tractatus and other writings of the Vienna Circle in the context of various political and artistic avant-garde movements of the early twentieth century. Despite the Circle's emphasis on logical analysis, its writings were drawn into the polemics that characterized avant-garde groups, in particular their reliance on manifestos. The essay uses the manifestos of the Vienna Circle as a lens through which to uncover the polemical and performative nature of central texts of logical positivism, including the Tractatus, (...) whose condensed, numbered, and pointed sentences echo central features of twentieth-century manifestos. (shrink)

If we view the aim of feminist science as truthlikeness, instead of either absolute or relative truth, then we can explain the sense in which the feminist sciences bring an objective advance in knowledge without implicating One True Theory. I argue that a certain non-linguistic theory of truthlikeness is especially well-suited to this purpose and complements the feminist epistemologies of Harding, Haraway, and Longino.

The ArgumentBehind the dispute over the relative priority of theory and experiment lie conflicting philosophical images of the nature of scientific inquiry. One crucial image arose in the 1920s, when the logical positivists agitated for a “unity of science” that would ground all meaningful scientific activity on an observational foundation. Their goals and rhetoric dovetailed with the larger movements of architectural, literary, and philosophical modernism. Historians of science followed the positivists by tracking experimental science as the basis for scientific progress. (...) After World War II, historians and philosophers of science created an antipositivist movement, inverting the positivist idea that observation had epistemic priority. But this counter-movement retained the modernist aspiration to unity, now chaining observation to theory. Once again historians of science, following their philosophical colleagues, illustrated the new modernism with historical instances of observation dominated by theory.Either reductionist scheme, by privileging one activity over the other, dictates an overly constrictive periodization. We need a wider class of periodization models that will allow instrumentation, experimentation, and theory a partial autonomy without granting any one the sole legitimate narrative standpoint. Such a heterogeneous representation of historical traditions may, surprisingly, make better sense of the perceived coherence of activity across theoretical transitions than the monolithic modernist representation of science it displaces. (shrink)

Scientific pluralism is an issue at the forefront of philosophy of science. This landmark work addresses the question, Can pluralism be advanced as a general, philosophical interpretation of science?

This dissertation aims at a systemic presentation of Neurath’s thinking as a coherent and sui generis whole. In order to satisfy this desideratum, the main idea put forth in this dissertation is that a specific two-way relation holds between two of Neurath’s main philosophical theses: Semantic Coherentism: a sentence is true if, and only if, it belongs to, or can be deduced from, a coherent set of sentences. Sociological Relativism: the value of a social change depends on how it influences (...) the living conditions of a certain group of individuals. The two-way relation is the following: from the reconstructive point of view, Neurathian semantic coherentism entails his sociological relativism; but, from the point of view of the conceptual structure underlying Neurath’s thinking, it is his sociological relativism that entails his semantic coherentism. We thus arrive at a virtuous circle. On the one hand, the appeal to sociological relativism (together with Neurath’s first order sociological commitments) allows us to explain his view of science; on the other hand, only once we have acquired a justification for sociological relativism, via his theory of truth, are we entitled to explain his view of science in this way. The exposition will be guided by the attempt to find an answer to the three following questions: (i) Does Neurath accept the standard threefold definition of knowledge? (ii) What kind of coherentism is endorsed by Neurath? (iii) Is Neurath’s coherentism compatible with empiricism? The answer to the first question will be negative. It will be argued that radical physicalism (i.e. the conjunction between physicalism and epistemic naturalism) entails the rejection of this definition. The answer to the second question will amount to showing that Neurath’s endorsement of semantic coherentism does not entail, as it is sometimes stated, the endorsement of epistemic coherentism. Finally, the third question will be answered negatively by showing that, given Neurath’s theory of protocol sentences, his coherentism and his empiricism are compatible. The exegetical work prompted by the need to answer these questions will provide us with the elements we need in order to substantiate the main idea mentioned above. (shrink)