Is Science Neurotic?

Philosophy Now 51:30-33 (2002)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Neurosis can be interpreted as a methodological condition which any aim-pursuing entity can suffer from. If such an entity pursues a problematic aim B, represents to itself that it is pursuing a different aim C, and as a result fails to solve the problems associated with B which, if solved, would lead to the pursuit of aim A, then the entity may be said to be "rationalistically neurotic". Natural science is neurotic in this sense in so far as a basic aim of science is represented to be to improve knowledge of factual truth as such, when actually the aim of science is to improve knowledge of explanatory truth. Science does not suffer too much from this neurosis, but philosophy of science does. Much more serious is the rationalistic neurosis of the social sciences, and of academic inquiry more generally. Freeing social science and academic inquiry from neurosis would have far reaching, beneficial, intellectual, institutional and cultural consequences.
Reprint years
2005
ISBN(s)
0961-5970  
PhilPapers/Archive ID
MAXISN-3
Revision history
Archival date: 2019-03-13
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2017-02-15

Total views
10 ( #37,376 of 38,007 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
10 ( #27,483 of 38,007 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads since first upload

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.