Scientific Controversies Philosophical and Historical Perspectives

Traditionally it has been thought that scientific controversies can always be resolved on the basis of empirical data. Recently, however, social constructionists have claimed that the outcome of scientific debates is strongly influenced by non-evidential factors such as the rhetorical prowess and professional clout of the participants. This volume of previously unpublished essays by well-known philosophers of science presents historical studies and philosophical analyses that undermine the plausibility of an extreme social constructionist perspective while also indicating the need for a richer and more realistic account of scientific rationality.

Aristides Baltas, National Technical University of Athens, Greece Pierluigi Barrotta, University of Pisa, Italy Gideon Freudenthal, Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel-Aviv University Kostas Gavroglu, University of Athens, Greece Richard Grandy, Rice University Ian Hacking, University of Toronto, Canada Philip Kitcher, Columbia University Peter Machamer, University of Pittsburgh Maurizio Mamiani, University of Ferrara, Italy Marcello Pera, University of Pisa, Italy Michael Ruse, University of Guelph, Canada Merrilee H. Salmon, University of Pittsburgh Wesley C. Salmon, University of Pittsburgh William A. Wallace, Catholic University, Emeritus