SCIENTIFIC IDENTITY AS THE BASIS OF THE DEFICIT MODEL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202562219Keywords:
21st century science, identity of science, scientific financing, scientific ideology, deficit modelAbstract
The deficit model of scientific communication has been largely abandoned in its descriptive aspect as inconsistent with reality. However, from our perspective, the deficit model retains enduring popularity in its normative dimension. It is the deficit model, in contrast to others, that emphasizes strict adherence to the boundaries of scientific knowledge’s identity, distinguishing it from all that is non-scientific. In this article, we critique the concept of scientific knowledge's identity as a value. First, we identify problematic aspects in the intra-structural imperative to preserve scientific identity. On the one hand, the insistence on rigid boundaries conflicts with the need for scientific progress and the generation of new knowledge. Thus, science is already fractured in its normative dimension. On the other hand, numerous studies demonstrate that science fails to maintain its identity in either synchronic or diachronic perspectives. Next, we observe that in its interactions with the external environment, science has never been entirely autonomous; rather, the degree of its identification has been regulated by society, of which science is a functional part. Science merely occupies a privileged social position as long as society grants it a mandate to fulfill this role. Even scientists themselves are guided by far more than just scientific epistemic practices. We argue that the most effective model of communication lies midway between the dialogic and participatory models.
References
Вострикова Е.В., Куслий П.С. Неолиберализм в науке: подход STS // Эпистемология и философия науки. 2015. № 4. С. 105–127.
Герген К.Дж. Социальная конструкция в контексте. Харьков: Гуманитарный центр, 2016. 328 с.
Дастон Л., Галисон П. Объективность. М.: НЛО, 2018. 584 c.
Иванов К. Астрономы и топографы в борьбе за Центральную Азию. Заметки к эпистемологии колонизации // Логос. 2020. № 2. C. 15–40.
Касавин И.Т. Зоны обмена как предмет социальной философии науки // Эпистемология и философия науки. 2017. Т. 51. № 1. С. 8–17.
Латур Б. Пастер: Война и мир микробов, с приложением «Несводимого». СПб.: Изд-во Европ. ун-та в С.-Петербурге, 2015. 316 с.
Мол А. Множественное тело: онтология в медицинской практике. Пермь: Hyle Press, 2017. 254 с.
Тулмин С. Человеческое понимание. М., 1984. 328 с.
Уайт Х. Метаистория: Историческое воображение в Европе XIX в. Екатеринбург: Изд-во Урал. ун-та, 2002. 528 с.
Фуллер С. Социальная эпистемология университета: как сохранить целостность знания в так называемом обществе // Эпистемология и философия науки. 2008. № 1. С. 158–185.
Фуллер С. Постправда: знание как борьба за власть. М.: ИД ВШЭ, 2021. 368 с.
Хакинг Я. Почему вообще существует философия математики? М.: Канон+, 2020. 400 с.
Callon, M. “The Role of Lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge”, Science, technology and society, 1999, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 81–94.
Campbell, D.T. “Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish scale model of omniscience”, Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social Sciences. London, 2017, pp. 328–349.
Daston, L. “The Empire of Observation, 1600–1800”, in: L. Daston & E. Lunbeck (eds.) Histories of Scientific Observation. Chicago; London: The Univ. of Chicago Press, 2011, pp. 81–113.
Daston, L., Galison, P. Ob”ektivnost’ [Objectivity]. Moscow: NLO, 2018. (Trans. into Russian)
Dear, P. “What Is the History of Science the History Of?”, Isis, 2005, vol. 96, pp. 390–406.
Fuller, S. “Social’naya epistemologiya universiteta: kak sohranit’ celostnost’ znaniya v tak nazyvaemom obshchestve” [Social Epistemology of the University: How to Preserve the Integrity of Knowledge in the So-Called Society], Epistemology & philosophy of science, 2008, no. 1, pp. 158–185.
Fuller, S. Postpravda: znanie kak bor’ba za vlast’ [Post-truth: Knowledge as a Struggle for Power]. Moscow: ID VShE, 2021. (Trans. into Russian)
Gergen, K. Social’naya konstrukciya v kontekste [Social Construction in Context]. Kharkov: Gumanitarnyj centr, 2016.
Hacking, I. Pochemu voobshche sushchestvuet filosofiya matematiki? [Why Is There Philosophy of Mathematics at All?] Moscow: Kanon+, 2020. 400 p. (Trans. into Russian)
Ivanov, K. “Astronomy i topografy v bor’be za Central’nuyu Aziyu. Zametki k epistemologii kolonizacii” [Astronomers and Topographers in the Struggle for Central Asia. Notes on the Epistemology of Colonization], Logos, 2020, no. 2, pp. 15–40. (In Russian)
Kasavin, I. “Zony obmena kak predmet sotsial’noi filosofii nauki” [Trading Zones as a Subject-matter of Social Philosophy of Science], Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2017, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 8–17. (In Russian)
Keulartz, J., Belt, H., van den. “DIY-Bio – Economic, Epistemological and Ethical Implications and Ambivalences”, Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 2016, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–19.
Knorr-Cetina, K. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Latour, B. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge (Mass.), London: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Latour, B. Paster: Vojna i mir mikrobov, s prilozheniem “Nesvodimogo” [Pasteur: War and the World of Microbes, with the application of the “Irreducible”]. Saint Petersburg: Izd-vo Evrop. un-ta v S.-Peterburge, 2015.
Leith, P., Haward, M., Rees, Ch., Ogier, E. “Success and evolution of boundary organization”, Science, technology & human values, 2016, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 375–401.
Master, Z., Resnik, D.B. “Hype and Public Trust in Science”, Science and Engineering Ethics, 2013, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 321–335.
Mol, A. Mnozhestvennoe telo: ontologiya v medicinskoj praktike [The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice]. Perm: Hyle Press, 2017. (Trans. into Russian)
Pielke, R.A., Jr. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Shapin, S., Schaffer, S. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (with a new introduction by the authors). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.
Smallman, M. “Science to the Rescue or Contingent Progress? Comparing Ten Years of Public, Expert and Policy Discources on New and Emerging Science and Technology in the United Kingdom”, Public Understanding of Science, 2017, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1–19.
Tulmin, S. Chelovecheskoe ponimanie [Human Understanding]. Moscow: Progress, 1984.
Vostrikova, E.V. and Kusliy, P.S. “Neoliberalizm v nauke: podhod STS” [Neoliberalism in Science: the STS Approach], Epistemology & philosophy of science, 2015, no. 4, pp. 105–127.
White, H. Metaistoriya: Istoricheskoe voobrazhenie v Evrope XIX v. [Metahistory: Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe]. Ekaterinburg: Izd-vo Ural. un-ta, 2002.
Wynne, B. “May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-lay Knowledge Divide”, in: S. Lash, B. Szerzynskia, D. Wynne (eds.). Risk, Environment and Modernity. London: Sage, 1996, pp. 44–83.
