Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach.

TLDR

The debate over whether scientific knowledge is objective or socially mediated has moved from academia to the public sphere, with philosophers like Ronald Giere challenging the Enlightenment view that science uniquely discovers universal truths. Giere contends that scientists should be seen as building abstract models of limited aspects of the world rather than uncovering absolute truths. This model‑based view reconciles critics and defenders, showing that rejecting the Enlightenment ideal does not undermine science’s capacity to produce genuine knowledge and offers a middle ground for understanding science.

Abstract

Debate over the nature of has recently moved from the halls of academia into the public sphere, where it has taken shape as the science At issue is the question of whether scientific knowledge is objective and universal or socially mediated, whether scientific truths are independent of human values and beliefs. Ronald Giere is a philosopher of who has been at the forefront of this debate from its inception, and Science without Laws offers a much-needed mediating perspective on an increasingly volatile line of inquiry. Giere does not question the major findings of modern science: for example, that the universe is expanding or that inheritance is carried by DNA molecules with a double helical structure. But like many critics of modern science, he rejects the widespread notion of science--deriving ultimately from the Enlightenment--as a uniquely rational activity leading to the discovery of universal truths underlying all natural phenomena. In these highly readable essays, Giere argues that it is better to understand scientists as merely constructing more or less abstract models of limited aspects of the world. Such an understanding makes possible a resolution of the issues at stake in the wars. The critics of are seen to be correct in rejecting the Enlightenment idea of science, and its defenders are seen to be correct in insisting that does produce genuine knowledge of the natural world. Giere is utterly persuasive in arguing that to criticize the Enlightenment ideal is not to criticize itself, and that to defend one need not defend the Enlightenment ideal. Science without Laws thus stakes out a middle ground in these debates by showing us how can be better conceived in other ways.