Discussion questions

1. Could the social structure of science described by Merton and Hull serve as a positive model for society at large? Why or why not?

2. Do you agree with Feyerabend that "Science… has gone from being an ally of freedom to being an enemy" (Godfrey-Smith 2003)? Why or why not?

3. Do you agree or disagree with Harding and/or Fox's critical comments about the role of science in society and nature?

"[T]he natural and social sciences we have are in important respects incapable of producing the kinds of knowledge that are needed for sustainable human life in sustainable environments under democratic conditions. The conventional frameworks of the natural and social sciences have been designed for quite different projects - in short, for producing the kinds of information useful to the administrators and managers of nation states, multinational corporations, and militaries." (Harding 1996)

"Noting that science has become fixated upon its 'technical agenda', Fox pleads for a re-orientation of scientific priorities towards what he calls science's 'interpretive agenda', its social responsibility to provide public education on matters of scientific complexity, so that we ordinary people can make sense of 'the complex issues that confront us'." (Hay 2002)

4. Does it make sense for philosophy, but not science, to be normative?

Godfrey-Smith, P. 2003. Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. University of Chicago. Chicago, IL.

Harding, S. 1996. Science is "good to think with". In: Ross, A., editor. Science Wars. Duke University. Durham, NC. Pp. 16-28.

Hay, P. 2002. Main Currents in Western Environmental Thought. Indian University. Bloomington, IN.