Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:24:13.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Study of Controversies and the Theory and History of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Marcelo Dascal
Marcelo Dascal
Affiliation:
Faculty of HumanitiesTel Aviv University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

These introductory remarks are unorthodox in many respects. The deviance from usual practice is justified by the extreme importance I attach to the subject matter of this special issue. I want to convey to the reader a sense of why I think controversies, particularly in science, are so crucial, and to propose a different way of thinking about them. This mandates, in the limited space available, a compact presentation, omitting supporting arguments and necessary elaboration — for which the reader is referred to the bibliography.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , Summer 1998 , pp. 147 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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

Dascal, M. 1989. “Controversies as Quasi-dialogues.” In Dialoganalyse II, edited by Weigand, E. and Hundsnurcher, F., Band 1, 147–159. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dascal, M. 1990. “The Controversy about Ideas and the Ideas of Controversy.” In Scientific and Philosophical Controversies, edited by Gil, F., 61–100. Lisbon: Fragmentos.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. 1992. “On the Pragmatic Structure of Conversation.” In (On) Searle on Conversation, Searle, J. R. et al. , 35–56. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dascal, M. 1995. “Epistemología, controversias y pragmática.” Isegoría 12:8–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dascal, M. 1997. “Critique without Critics?” Science in Context 10(1):39–62.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. 1998a. “Types of Polemics and Types of Polemical Moves.” In Dialogue Analysis VI, edited by Cmejrkova, S. et al. , Band 1,15–33. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. 1998b. “Controverses et polémiques. ”In La Science Classique — Dictionnaire Critique, edited by Blay, M. and Halleux, R., 26–35. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, Jr., Tristram, H. and Caplan, , Arthur, L., eds. 1987. Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gil, F. 1985. “Science and Controversy.” In Dialogue — an Interdisciplinary Approach, edited by Dascal, M., 353–365. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gil, F., ed. 1990. Scientific and Philosophical Controversies. Lisbon: Fragmentos.Google Scholar