“Once Upon a Time” Philosophy of Science: STS, Science Policy and the Semantic View of Scientific Theories

Abstract

Is a policy-friendly philosophy of science possible? In order to respond this question, I consider a particular instance of contemporary philosophy of science, the semantic view of scientific theories, by placing it in the broader methodological landscape of the integration of philosophy of science into STS (Science and Technology Studies) as a component of the overall contribution of the latter to science policy. In that context, I defend a multi-disciplinary methodological integration of the special discipline composing STS against a reductionist interdisciplinary unification, arguing that if STS wants to contribute to policy advising by constructing narratives of science practice feasible for science policy both in terms of descriptive completeness and intelligibility, then it must avoid the explanatory reductionism tendencies of special disciplines in interdisciplinary contexts. This would favour, at the same time, a relaxation of esoteric language. On this basis, it seems that the semantic view is one right candidate among other approaches in the philosophy of science for facilitating the integration of the methodologically different contributions to STS toward policy objectives. In fact, besides offering a more realistic and descriptively complete picture of science practice with respect to its predecessor in the philosophy of science, namely the syntactic view, the semantic view is also able to capture some aspects of science practice that elude even sociological approaches to STS, thus inviting different perspective on the same subject matter.

Introduction: The Coming of the Knowledge Society and the Challenges for the Future of Europe

“…Oreskes et al 1994;Oreskes 1998Oreskes , 2004Oreskes and Belitz 2001) demonstrates the epistemological and cognitive value of focusing on provisional models in the area of environmental sciences. This approach is supported by the semantic conception of scientific theories (see Viola 2009). It is by assuming this conception of science as a conceptual basis (see MIRRORS 2008, § 3.1.1) that we have argued for a multi-disciplinary approach (as opposed to a interdisciplinary one (see ib., § 2.1), since we want to account for the complexity of science.…”

“…It originated from the Polish Poznań School (whose representive scholar is Leszek Nowak), although this genesis is often naively ignored. This has happened despite the approach has been taken over by important scholars such as Mario Bunge, Craig Dilworth, Nancy Cartwright, Theo Kuipers, Ronald Giere, William Wimsatt, notwithstanding the notoriety of a parallel conception developed by F. Suppe (on the semantic view see Viola 2009) and recent work by S. Hartmann, M. Weisberg, R. Frigg, C. Imbert, X. De Donato.…”

“…Policy makers should discard those descriptive models of scientific practice that attempt to describe the complexity of the techno-scientific system by analyzing only one (or two) of these dimensions (see MIRRORS 2009b, § § 13-14 andViola 2009).…”