Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:30:13.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Approaches to Understanding Scientific Norms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Michael Strevens
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A theme of much work taking an “economic approach” to the study of science is the interaction between the norms of individual scientists and those of society at large. Though drawing from the same suite of formal methods, proponents of the economic approach offer what are in substantive terms profoundly different explanations of various aspects of the structure of science. The differences are illustrated by comparing Strevens's explanation of the scientific reward system (the “priority rule”) with Max Albert's explanation of the prevalence of “high methodological standards” in science. Some objections to the economic approach as a whole are then briefly considered.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 184 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Albert, M. 2011. “Methodology and Scientific Competition.” Episteme 8(2): 165–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, B. D. and Bloor, J. H.. 1996. Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brock, W. A. and Durlauf, S. N.. 1999. “A Formal Model of Theory Choice in Science.” Economic Theory 14: 113–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, P. and David, P. A.. 1994. “Toward a New Economics of Science.” Research Policy 23: 487–521.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. and Shaked, M.. 1991. “An Economic Model of Scientific Activity and Truth Acquisition.” Philosophical Studies 63: 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. 1988. Science as a Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1990. “The Division of Cognitive Labor.” Journal of Philosophy 87: 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1993. The Advancement of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1942. “Science and Technology in a Democratic Order.” Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1: 115–26. Reprinted as “The Normative Structure of Science” in (Merton 1973).Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1957/1973. “Priorities in Scientific Discovery.” American Sociological Review 22: 635–59. Page references are to the 1973 reprint.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1968. “The Matthew Effect in Science.” Science 159: 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1973. The Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mirowski, P. 1997. “On Playing the Economics Trump Card in the Philosophy of Science: Why It Did Not Work for Michael Polanyi.” Philosophy of Science 64: S127–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S. 1879. “Note on the Theory of the Economy of Research.” In Report of the Superintendent of the United States Coast Survey Showing the Progress of the Work for the Fiscal Year Ending with June 1876, pp. 197–201. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. 1962. “The Republic of Science.” Minerva 1: 54–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rueger, A. 1996. “Risk and Diversification in Theory Choice.” Synthese 109: 263–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkar, H. 1983. A Theory of Method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Strevens, M. 2003. “The Role of the Priority Rule in Science.” Journal of Philosophy 100: 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strevens, M. 2006. “The Role of the Matthew Effect in Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37: 159–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strevens, M. 2010. “Reconsidering Authority: Scientific Expertise, Bounded Rationality, and Epistemic Backtracking.” Oxford Studies in Epistemology 3: 294–330.Google Scholar
Weisberg, M. and Muldoon, R.. 2009. “Epistemic Landscapes and the Division of Cognitive Labor.” Philosophy of Science 76: 225–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zollman, K. J. S. 2010. “The Epistemic Benefit of Transient Diversity.” Erkenntnis 72: 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar