Hangel Nora, ChoGlueck Christopher
Leibniz Center for Science and Society (LCSS), Leibniz University Hannover, Germany; Institute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Department of Communication, Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (New Mexico Tech), Socorro, NM, USA.
Stud Hist Philos Sci. 2023 Apr;98:29-39. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.12.009. Epub 2023 Feb 25.
While the pursuitworthiness of philosophical ideas has changed over time, philosophical practice and methodology have not kept pace. The worthiness of a philosophical pursuit includes not only the ideas and objectives one pursues but also the methods with which one pursues them. In this paper, we articulate how empirical approaches benefit philosophy of science, particularly advocating for the use of qualitative methods for understanding the social and normative aspects of scientific inquiry. After situating qualitative methods within empirical philosophy of science, we discuss how to adapt these traditionally sociological methods to empirically inform philosophical questions. Our aim is to normalize and legitimize qualitative methods for philosophical purposes and discuss how they can elucidate descriptive and normative components of scientific practice in a more generalizable non-idealized manner. We contend that qualitative methods are particularly well suited to philosophical interest in the social norms of science, their achievability, and their mutability. Furthermore, unlike more historical case studies in philosophy, qualitative methods enable more confidence in generalizability, albeit limited, from a concrete sample to a larger class. We conclude by addressing anxieties about the distinctness of empirical philosophy of science from social epistemology and from sociology of science.
虽然哲学思想的价值追求随时间而变化,但哲学实践和方法论却未能跟上步伐。哲学追求的价值不仅包括一个人所追求的思想和目标,还包括追求这些思想和目标所使用的方法。在本文中,我们阐述了实证方法如何有益于科学哲学,特别提倡使用定性方法来理解科学探究的社会和规范层面。在将定性方法置于科学哲学的实证研究范畴之后,我们讨论如何调整这些传统的社会学方法,以便从经验角度为哲学问题提供依据。我们的目标是使定性方法在哲学目的上正常化并合法化,并讨论它们如何能够以一种更具普遍性、非理想化的方式阐明科学实践的描述性和规范性组成部分。我们认为,定性方法特别适合哲学对科学社会规范、其可实现性及其可变性的关注。此外,与哲学中更多的历史案例研究不同,定性方法能够从一个具体样本到更大类别,在有限的普遍性方面给予更多信心。我们通过解决对科学哲学实证研究与社会认识论以及科学社会学的区别的担忧来结束本文。