Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:08:55.254Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The politics of the philosophy of science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2009

Milja Kurki
Milja Kurki*
Affiliation:
Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, UK
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Monteiro and Ruby (2009) argue that International Relations (IR) scholars should look to adopt a more ‘tentative attitude’ towards the philosophy of science (PoS) frameworks in IR. This is an attractive and timely call for more open-minded PoS argumentation in the field. Yet, the logic of Monteiro and Ruby’s argument is not (rather characteristically of PoS debates) infallible. As other commentaries in this forum show, it is not self-evident that Monteiro and Ruby’s account is ‘post-foundational’, or that it is premised on an accurate reading of existing PoS positions in IR. However, I do not here wish to elaborate further on the critiques that could be made of the internal coherence of Monteiro and Ruby’s argumentation or their reading of core philosophical schools. Instead, I want to discuss a different kind of an issue raised by Monteiro and Ruby’s intervention: their treatment of the interaction of political forms of argumentation and PoS debates.

Keywords

philosophy of sciencemeta-theoryIR theory
Type
Meeting Report
Information
International Theory , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , November 2009 , pp. 440 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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.)

Footnotes

1

Many thanks to Colin Wight for his comments on an earlier draft and to the anonymous reviewers and the editors for their detailed commentaries and suggestions. Thanks also to Tim Dunne, Steve Smith, Hidemi Suganami and Jenny Edkins for useful discussions on the arguments presented here.

References

Bhaskar, R. (1989), Possibility of Naturalism, 2nd edn, Brighton: Harverster Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, R. (1991), Philosophy and the Idea of Freedom, London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brown, C. (2007), ‘Situating critical realism’, Millennium 35(2): 409–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, A. (1988), Scientific Realism and Socialist Thought, Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Collier, A. (2003), In Defence of Objectivity, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fuller, S. (2004), Kuhn vs Popper: Struggle for the Soul of Science, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1971), Knowledge and Human Interests, Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Harding, S. (1991), Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, M.Adorno, T. (1972), Dialectic of Enlightenment, New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Joseph, J. (2007), ‘Philosophy in international relations: a scientific realist approach’, Millennium 35: 345–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keat, R. (1981), The Politics of Social Theory, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
King, G., Keohane, R.O.Verba, S. (1994), Designing Social Inquiry; Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, F. (2007), ‘Of false promises and good bets: a plea for a pragmatic approach to theory building (the Tartu lecture)’, Journal of International Relations and Development 10: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurki, M. (2008), Causation in International Relations: Reclaiming Causal Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurki, M.Sinclair, A. (forthcoming) ‘Hidden in plain sight: social constructivist analysis of social context and its limitations’, International Politics.Google Scholar
Monteiro, N.P.Ruby, K. (2009), ‘The false promise of philosophical foundations’, International Theory 1(1): 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, M. (1996), Causes and Consequences in International Relations: A Conceptual Study, London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Patomäki, H.Wight, C. (2000), ‘After post-positivism? the promises of critical realism’, International Studies Quarterly 44(2): 213–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patomäki, H. (2002), After International Relations: Critical Realism and the (Re)construction of World Politics, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K.R. (1966), The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. II, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Price, R. (ed.) (2008), ‘Moral limit and possibility in world politics’, in Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, C. (2008), ‘Constructivism and the structure of ethical reasoning’, in R. Price (ed.), Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 53–82.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. (1989), Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, R. (1991), Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rupert, M. (2000), Ideologies of Globalization: Contending Visions of a New World Order, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sayer, A. (2000), Realism and Social Science, London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S. (1997), ‘Power and truth: a reply to Wallace’, Review of International Studies 23(4): 507–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zehfuss, M. (2002), Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, A. (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wight, C. (2006), Agents and Structures in International Relations: Politics as Ontology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winch, P. (1990), The Idea of Social Science and its relation to philosophy, 2nd edn, London: Routledge.Google Scholar