Neither Modernist Nor Postmodernist — A Third Way

  • Mara Beller
Part of the The Frontiers Collection book series (FRONTCOLL)


In this paper I undertake an analysis of the heritage of Kuhn and Feyerabend as compared with the main tenets of the logical positivism, and identify the components of logical positivism that directly lead to relativism. I argue that the notion of consensus creates major problems in historiography and philosophy of science, preventing a description of scientific change. I further argue that the concept of creative disagreement should be introduced into studies of science not only as a historical actuality, but also as a basic epistemological and methodological presupposition. I trace the grip of the notion of consensus in social studies of science to Durkheim’s heritage, focusing on the representatives of the Strong Program in sociology of science. I also argue that Thomas Kuhn inherited the same Durkheimian view of society through Ludwik Fleck Finally, I briefly outline a dialogical alternative to the current historiography—an alternative in which the notion of disagreement plays a fundamental epistemological role.


Social Constructivism Scientific Change Epistemic Virtue Logical Positivist Soccer Team 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bakhtin, Mikhail (1984), Problems of Dostoyevsky’s Poetics. Edited and translated by Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, S. Barry (1974), T S. Kuhn and Social Science. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, S. Barry, David Bloor, and John Henry (1996), Scientific Knowledge—A Sociological Analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beller, Mara (1997), “Criticism and Revolutions,” Science in Context, vol. 10, no.1, pp. 13–37 and vol. 10, no.6, pp. 241–255.Google Scholar
  5. Bei T Fr, Mara (1999), Quantum Dialogue—The Making of a Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beller, Mara and Arthur Fine (1994), “Bohr’s Response to EPR.” In: FAYE/FOLSE (eds.; 1994 ), pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
  7. Bloor, David (1976), Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bunge, Mario (1996), “In Praise of Intolerance to Charlatanism in Academia.” In: GROSS et. al. (eds.; 1996), pp. 96–115.Google Scholar
  9. Catlin, George E. G. (1968), “Introduction to the Translation”. In: DURKHEIM 1968.Google Scholar
  10. Cole, Stephen (1992), Making Science: Between Nature and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cole, Stephen (1996), “Voodoo Sociology: Recent Developments in the Sociology of Science”. In: GROSS et. al. (eds.; 1996), pp. 274–287.Google Scholar
  12. Collins, Harry M. (1992), Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Douglas, Mary (1975), Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  14. Durkheim, Emile (1968), The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. London: George and Unwin Ltd. [First published in 1915 ].Google Scholar
  15. Earman, John (1993), “Carnap, Kuhn and the Philosophy of Scientific Methodology.” In: HORWICH (ed.; 1993 ), pp. 9–36.Google Scholar
  16. Feynman, Richard P. (1998), The Meaning of It All—Thoughtsof a Citizen Scientist. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Faye, Jan and Henry J. Folse (eds.; 1994 ), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  18. Fleck, Ludwik (1979), Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press [First published in 1935 ].Google Scholar
  19. Frank, Philipp (1957), Philosophy of Science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. FRIEDMAN, MICHAEL (1987), “Carnap’s Aufbau Reconsidered,” Nous, vol. 21, pp. 521–545.Google Scholar
  20. Friedman, Michael (1999), Reconsidering Logical Positivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Galison, Peter L. and David J. Stump (eds.; 1996 ), The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ghirardi, Giancarlo, Antonio Rimini, and Tullio Weber (1986), “Unified Dynamics for Microscopic and Macroscopic Systems,” Physical Review D34, 470–491.Google Scholar
  23. Gross, Paul R., Norman Levitt, and Martin W. Lewis, (eds.; 1996), The Flight from Science and Reason. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. HAACK, SUSAN (1996), “Concern for Truth: What it Means, Why it Matters.” In: GROSS et. al. (eds.; 1996 ), pp. 57–63.Google Scholar
  24. Horwich, Paul (ed.; 1993 ), World Changes: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kitcher, Philip (1993), The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Krüger, Lorenz, Gerd Gingerenzer, and Mary S. Morgan (eds.; 1987 ), The Probabilistic Revolution, vol. 1 and 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1987), “What Are Scientific Revolutions?” In: KRÜGER et al. (eds.; 1987 ), pp. 7–22.Google Scholar
  29. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1993), “Afterwords.” In: HORWICH (ed.; 1993 ), pp. 311–341.Google Scholar
  30. Kuhn, Thomas S. (2000), The Road Since Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Latour, Bruno (1987), Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mcmullin, Ernan (1991), “Rhetoric and Theory of Choice in Science.” In: PERA/SHEA (eds.; 1991 ), pp. 55–76.Google Scholar
  33. Pickering, Andrew (1984), ConstructingQuarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pera, Marcello and William Shea (eds.; 1991 ) Persuading Science: The Art of Scientific Rhetoric. Canton, MA: Science History Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Ritzer, George (1996), Classical Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. 284 Mara BellerGoogle Scholar
  36. Rorty, Richard (1991) Objectivity Relativism and Truth Philosophical Papers Volume I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Google Scholar
  37. Sampson, Edward E. (1993), Celebrating the Other, A Dialogic Account of Human Nature. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  38. Shapin, Steven (1994), A Social History of Truth. Chicago: The Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Shapin, Steven (1995), “Here and Everywhere: Sociology of Scientific Knowledge,” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 21, pp. 289–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Small, Henry (1974), Characteristics of Frequently Cited Papers in Chemistry. Final Report on Contract no. NSF-C795. Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information.Google Scholar
  41. Sokal, Alan D. (1996), “Transgressing the Boundaries—Toward a Trans-formative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,” Social Text, vol. 46 /47, pp. 217–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Russell, Bertrand (1991), History of Vestern Philosophy. London: Routledge 000000 Kegan Paul [First published in 1946 ].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mara Beller

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations