TRUST IN SCIENCE: THERE ARE GOOD REASONS TO DOUBT SCIENCE IN FATEFUL TIMES?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22481/rbba.v10i02.9593Keywords:
Western science, Trust, Reasons, Covid- 19Abstract
The aim of this paper is to examine a series of arguments that were offered to support and undermine trust in science. Although we understand that from this tour it is not possible to sufficiently answer the question posed in the title, we consider that it is feasible to provide a picture of the situation by applying some arguments for and against the robustness of scientific knowledge and the authority of science to the problem of trust in the scientific in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. We propose to weigh the reasons for trusting and mistrusting science and to establish some criteria to cautiously evaluate the arguments for and against placing trust in science.
Downloads
References
AGAMBEN, G. ZIZEK, S. Et al. Sopa de Wuhan. ASPO, 2020. 185p. Ed. Digital: http://iips.usac.edu.gt/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Sopa-de-Wuhan-ASPO.pdf
BROWN, J. Smoke and Mirrors: How Science Reflects Reality. New York:
Routledge. 1994. 200 p.
CARTWRIGHT, N. Models and the limits of theory: quantum Hamiltonians
and the BCS models of superconductivity. In: Models as Mediators. MORRISON, M & MORGAN, M. (eds.) New York: Cambridge University Press .1999 pp.241-281
COMTE, A. Discurso sobre el espíritu positivo. Madrid: Alianza. [1844] 1980. 51p.
DANOWSKI, D y VIVEIROS DE CASTRO NUEVA, E. Los miedos y los fines… del mundo. Nueva Sociedad. No. 283 pp 37-48. 2019.
DANOWSKI, D y VIVEIROS DE CASTRO NUEVA, E. Qué escabrosa bestia... Revista de la Universidad de México. México. 2017
DUHEM, P. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. New York: Atheneum[1908] 1962. 344p.
FEYERABEND, P. Tratado contra el método. Madrid: Tecnos. [1975] 2007. 337p.
FRANKLIN, A. Física y experimentación. Theoria: An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, SEGUNDA EPOCA, Vol. 17, No. 2(44) (Mayo 2002), pp. 221-242
GANGUI, A. El Big Bang. La génesis de nuestra cosmología actual. Buenos Aires: Eudeba, 2010. 391 p.
HACKING, I. Experimentation and Scientific Realism. Philosophical Topics, Vol. 13, No. 1, Realism (Spring 1982), pp. 71-87. University of Arkansas Press
HACKING, I. Representing and Intervening. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1983.287p.
HACKING, I. The Emergence of Probability. Second Edition Cambridge University Press New York. [1975] 2007.215p.
HARAWAY, D. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies. Vol. 14, No. 3 (Autumn, 1988), pp. 575-599
HERRERO, B. ACOSTA, M.et al. Vacunas contra el Covid-19. ¿Bienes públicos o de mercado? Post Note nro. 2. Febrero 2021 Red Argentina de Investigadoras e Investigadores de Salud
INCERTI, G. Anticiencia, el fenómeno fantasma. El universitario. 2020. Ed. Digital: https://eluniversitario.unnoba.edu.ar/2020/11/26/anticiencia-el-fenomeno-fantasma/
KUHN, T. La estructura de las revoluciones científicas. México: FCE. [1962]1985.319p.
LATOUR, B. y WOOLGAR, S. La vida en el laboratorio. La construcción de los hechos científicos. Madrid, Alianza. [1979] 1995.304 p.
LAUDAN, L. A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of science, n. 48, v. 1, p. 19–48, 1981.
LLOYD, E. Objectivity and the double standard for feminist epistemologies. Synthese. Volume 104, pp. 351–381 (1995)
LONGINO, H. Can there be a feminist science?, In: Cudd, Ann E.; Andreasen, Robin O., eds., Feminist theory: a philosophical anthology, Oxford, UK Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 210-217. 2005.
MAFFÍA, D. El vínculo crítico entre género y ciencia. CLEPSYDRA, 5; enero 2006, pp. 37-57. 2006.
MANDAVILLI, A. Los consejos sobre la covid cambian… porque así funciona la ciencia. The New York Times. 2020. Edición digital: https://www.nytimes.com/es/2021/08/24/espanol/consejos-covid.html
Ministerio de Salud de la Nación. Integración de la vigilancia genómica de sars-cov-2 a la vigilancia de covid-19 a través del sistema nacional de vigilancia de la salud versión 1. 04/2021, McLaren, P.J., Fellay, J. HIV-1 and human genetic variation. Nat Rev Genet 22, 645–657 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-021-00378-0
NOLA, R. Y SANKEY, H. Theories of Scientific Method. An Introduction. Stocksfield; Acumen Publishing Limited. 2007.
ORESKES, N y CONWAY, E. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists
Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press. 2010. 355p.
ORESKES, N y CONWAY, E. The Collapse of Western Civilization. New York: Columbia University Press.2014. 92p.
ORESKES, N. ¿Why Trust in Science? New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 2019.339p
POINCARÉ, H. Science and hypothesis. Ney Jersey: Science Press, 1905. 208p.
POPPER, K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge [1935] 2002. 451p.
POPPER, K. Conjectures and Refutations. The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Londron: Routiedge & Kegan Paul1972. 514p.
PUTNAM, H. Mathematics, matter and method, vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1975. 360p.
QUINE, W. Two Dogmas of Empiricism. In: From a Logical Point of View. New York: Harper & Row, [1951]1963, pp. 20-46
SANTOS, de Sousa B. Una epistemología del sur: la Reinvención del conocimiento y la emancipación social. México: Siglo XXI. 2009.
SANTOS, de Sousa B. La cruel pedagogía del virus. CLACSO. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. 2020.
SVAMPA, M, Cragnolini, M. Et all. La fiebre. ASPO.2020. Ed. digital: https://www.upc.edu.ar/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/La-Fiebre-ASPO.pdf
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Revista Binacional Brasil-Argentina: Dialogue between the sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
