The Philosophy of Science Studies: A Case Study in Theorizing

a session at the Dansk Filosofisk Selskabs Årsmøde 2010 (meeting website) 

Årsmødet afholdes fredag den 5. og lørdag den 6. marts 2010 på Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitetsskole,  Tuborgvej 164, Festsalen, bygning A, 2400 København NV.

The Philosophy of science studies session is at

Saterday, March 6, 2010, at 13.15 - 14:45, in Sal 407:

13:15-13-20:

Claus Emmeche

Session intro: On theorizing and modeling science from the perspectives of philosophy of science and science studies

Philosophy of science has traditionally been keen at investigating forms of inference, theory structure and theory choice, scientific explanation, modeling, and realism. As a discipline it is not often self-reflexive about the fact that it employs its own high-level, "meta-scientific" theories, models, and concepts. In contrast, science studies, which focuses on practice and norms in science, as well as ethnographic, sociological, and historical investigations of actual scientific work, seems to be more self-reflexive. In this session, we bring together a science studies scholar and a philosopher of science to exchange perspectives upon how we, as meta-scientists, could see our own theorizing, modeling, and conceptualization.

13:20 - 13:35:

Mercy W. Kamara

The Typology of the Game that American, British, and Danish crop and plant scientists play

Drawing from contemporary social science studies on the shifting regime of research governance, this paper extends the literature by utilizing a metaphoric image -- "research is a game" -- observed in a field engagement with 82 American, British, and Danish crop-and-plant scientists. It theorizes respondents' thinking and practices by placing the rules of the research "game" in dynamic and interactive tension between the scientific, social, and political-economic contingencies that generate opportunities or setbacks. Scientists who play the game exploit opportunities and surmount setbacks by adopting strategies and reinventing tactics in order to maximise their winnings and to minimise their losses. Winners become superstars who decree what is open, closed, or doable science for the majority of the scientific community.

- Literature: Kamara, M.W. 2009, "The Typology of the Game that American, British, and Danish Crop and Plant Scientists Play", Minerva. A Review of Science, Learning & Policy, 47(4): 441–463 [download paper].

Discussion to 13:50

13:50-14:05

Rasmus G. Winther

Abstraction and Conceptualization in/of Science

First, I will present a summary of my work in progress on a constructive and a critical theory of the role of abstraction and deabstraction in science, and explain how deabstraction can go wrong and end up in reification. Next, I will comment upon the first paper in this session by Mercy W. Kamara to reflect upon (a) the difference between deabstraction and reification in the natural sciences, and (b) the challenge of inventing adequate conceptual, "meta-scientific" typologies and models for categorizing scientists' behavior and regimes of knowledge production.

- Resources: see R.G.Winther's home page.

Discussion to 14:20

14:20 - 14:45

Panel and Plenum discussion: How to make models in science studies.