Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:39:11.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critique Without Critics?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Marcelo Dascal
Marcelo Dascal*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy Tel Aviv University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

The argument

Two dominant models of criticism are identified and analyzed. One is selfconsciously normative. It conceives of criticism as subject to strict logical rules. The other views itself as essentially descriptive and accounts for the critical activity in terms of social factors. In spite of their different origins and purposes, it is argued that both models share a reductionistic thrust, which minimizes the role of the critic qua agent. It is further agreed that neither provides an adequate account of critical activity and its role in science.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , Spring 1997 , pp. 39 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

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

Abelson, R. P. 1973. “The Structure of Belief Systems.” In Computer Models of Thought and Language, edited by Schank, R. C. and Colby, K. M., 287–340.San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Abelson, R. P.. 1975. “Concepts for Representing Mundane Reality in Plans.” In Representation and Knowledge: Studies in Cognitive Science, edited by Bobrow, D. G. and Collins, A., 273–309. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, B., and Bloor, D.. 1982. “Relativism, Rationalism and the Sociology of Knowledge.” In Rationality and Relativism, edited by Hollis, M. and Lukes, S., 21–47. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, B., and MacKenzie, D.. 1979. “On the Role of Interests in Scientific Change.” In On the Margins of Science: The Social Construction of Rejected Knowledge (Sociological Review Monograph 27), edited by Wallis, R., 49–66. Keele: University of Keele.Google Scholar
Bloor, D., 1984a. “The Sociology of Reasons: Or Why xEpistemic Factors' Are Really ‘Social Factors’.” In Brown 1984b, 295–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloor, D.. 1984b. “The Strengths or the Strong Programme.” In Brown 1984b, 75–94.Google Scholar
Bloor, D.. 1992. “Left and Right Wittgensteinians.” In Pickering 1992b, 266–82Google Scholar
Bloor, D.. 1996a. “Idealism and the Sociology of Knowledge.” Social Studies of Science 26:839–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloor, D.. 1996b. “Remember the Strong Programme?” Lecture delivered in Bielefeld.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. R. 1984a. “Introduction: The Sociological Turn.” In: Brown 1984b, 3–40.Google Scholar
Brown, J. R., ed. 1984b. Scientific Rationality: The Sociological Turn. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D. T. 1987. “Blind Variation and Selective Retention in Creative Thought and Other Knowledge Processes.” In Evolutionary Epistemology, Theory of Rationality, and the Sociology of Knowledge, edited by Radnitzky, G. and Bartley, W. W. III, 91–114. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. 1971. “Empirical Significance and Relevance.” Philosophia 1:81–106.Google Scholar
Dascal, M.. 1992. “Models of Interpretation.” In Current Advances in Semantic Theory, edited by Stamenov, M., 109–27. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dascal, M.. 1995. “Epistemologia, controversias, y pragmática.” Isegora 12:8–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dascal, M.. 1996. “The Beyond Enterprise.” In Beyond the Symbol Model: Reflections on the Representational Nature of Language, edited by Stewart, J., 303–34.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Dascal, M.. forthcoming a. “Types of Polemics and Types of Polemical Moves“. In Dialogue Analysis VI (Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Dialogue Analysis – “Dialogue in the Heart of Europe,” Prague, 1996), vol. 1, edited by Cmejrkova, S. et al. Tübingen.Google Scholar
Dascal, M.. forthcoming b. “The Balance of Reason”. In Language, Thought and Reason, edited by Vanderveken, D.. Oxford.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. 1995. Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
De Rijk, L. M. 1975. “Some Thirteenth Century Tracts on the Game of Obligation.” Vivarium 13(1):. 22–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, R. [1628] 1968. Rules for the Direction of the Mind. In The Philosophical Works of Descartes, vol. 1, translated by Haldane, E. S. and Ross, G. R. T., 1–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Grinnell, G. 1973. “Newton's Principia as Whig Propaganda.” In City and Society in the Eighteenth Century, edited by Fritz, P. and Williams, D., 181–92. Toronto.Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. 1972. Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hon, G. 1995. “Going Wrong: To Make a Mistake, to Fall into Error”. Review of Metaphysics 49:3–20.Google Scholar
Kretzman, N., Kenny, A., and Pinborg, J., eds. 1982. The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. 1979. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, edited by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A., 91–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. 1992a. “Extending Wittgenstein: The Pivotal Move from Epistemology to the Sociology of Science.” In Pickering 1992b, 215–65.Google Scholar
Lynch, M.. 1992b. “From the ‘Will to Theory’ to the Discursive Collage: A Reply to Bloor's ‘Left and Right Wittgensteinians’.“ In Pickering 1992b, 283–300.Google Scholar
Mannheim, K. [1936] 1960. Ideology and Utopia. Translated by Shills, E.. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Marmontel, J.-F. [1751–1772] 1986. “Critique dans les sciences.” In Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire Raisonné des Sciences, des Arts et des Métiers (selected articles), 322–26. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Perelman, C., and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.. [1958] 1969. The New Rhetoric – A Treatise on Argumentation. Translated by Wilkinson, J. and Weaver, P.. London: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Pickering, A. 1992a. “From Science as Knowledge to Science as Practice.” In Pickering 1992b, 1–26.Google Scholar
Pickering, A.. 1992b. Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polányi, M. 1958. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1940. “What is dialectic?” In Popper 1969, 312–35.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1949. “Towards a Rational Theory of Tradition.” In Popper 1969, 120–35Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1953. “Science: Conjectures and Refutations.” In Popper 1969, 22–65.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1966. The Open Society and Its Enemies, 5th ed. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1967. “Epistemology without a Knowing Subject.” In Popper 1972, 106–52.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1968. “On the Theory of the Objective Mind.” In Popper 1972, 153–90Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1969. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, 3rd ed. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1972. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R.. 1975. “The Rationality of Scientific Revolutions.” In Scientific Revolutions, edited by Hacking, I., 80–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R.. 1987. “Campbell on the Evolutionary Theory of Knowledge.” In Evolutionary Epistemology, Theory of Rationality, and the Sociology of Knowledge, edited by Radnitzky, G. and Bartley, W. W. III, 115–20. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court.Google Scholar
Schepers, H. 1984. “Obligatio, Ars obligatoria.” In Historisches Worterbuch der Philosophic, vol. 6, edited by Ritter, J. and Grunder, K., 1068–72. Basel: Schwabe.Google Scholar
Schopenhauer, A. 1942. “The Art of Controversy.” In: Complete Essays of Schopenhauer. Translated by Saunders, T. C.. New York:Google Scholar
Shapin, S. 1980. “Social Uses of Science.” In The Ferment of Knowledge: Studies in the Historiography of Eighteenth-Century Science, edited by Rousseau, G. S. and Porter, R., 93–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, B. F. 1974. About Behaviorism. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Spade, P. V. 1982. “Obligations: Developments in the Fourteenth Century.” In Kretzman et al. 1982, 335–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, E. 1982. “Obligations: From the Beginning to the Early Fourteenth Century”. In Kretzman et al. 1982, 315–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valery, P. [1910] 1974. Cahiers, vol. 2. Edited by Robinson-Valéry, J.. Paris: Gallimard. (Entries are, for the most part, dated.)Google Scholar
Voltaire, . [1764] 1964. Dictionnaire Philosophique. Paris: Garnier-Flammarion.Google Scholar