CHECK LIST EN PLANTA DE ACETILENO

3.4.1 Analytic vs. Naturalist Social Epistemology

Most of the work under this heading observes the evidence produced by the STS and the SPSSK and thereby all of it is, in the study of reference, naturalistically inclined. However, only Steve Fuller’s naturalist epistemology (i.e. 2002, 1997) and Joe Rouse’s (2003, 1987) account of scientific practices subscribe to strict naturalist commitments in line with those proposed by Quine (1969b).

It is important to note that, unlike other thinkers who share a similar object of study, this methodological position allows the authors at hand to diagnose problems

regarding knowledge production that would be otherwise undisclosed to those methodologically committed to a prior understanding of knowledge.

Unlike other authors who also understand knowledge in social terms, these authors find profound problems with epistemological assumptions that guide the conduct of science. They also find that any assumptions of positivity or knowledge that assume a source of authority beyond the relationship between the involved agents can be very problematic. In consequence, they differentiate themselves from others in finding science’s present status quo highly problematic.

In this regard, Fuller stands alone in prescribing a complete overhaul of the scientific establishment, which follows directly from the problems identified. I follow Fuller (2007) in distinguishing these two different camps of social epistemology as “naturalist” (those in agreement with a Quinean stance) and “analytic”. In order to illustrate how any a priori assumptions regarding the nature of knowledge and/or positivity can be problematic in both practical and theoretical terms, it is useful to compare Steve Fuller’s program with Helen Longino’s (2004).

Amongst the most naturalist committed works in the analytic camp (i.e. Goldman 1999, 1995; Longino 2002; Kitcher 2003, 1993) is Helen Longino’s (2002) The Fate of Knowledge. Here the author offers a solution that might seem successful at first glance. She diagnoses the deadlock between the sociologists and the philosophers as a misunderstanding centred on a dichotomising view of the rational versus the social (Longino 2002: 77). As a solution, she proposes to draw from social scientists and redefine rationality as a social process, while maintaining a philosophical notion of

As mentioned, her naturalist commitment is ample. She subscribes to an understanding of contextually situated knowledge as well as knowledge producing practices. She contends, furthermore, that “scientific observation is dialogical in nature”, and she proposes to treat subjects of knowledge as “located in particular and complex interrelationships, [as well as] acknowledging that purely logical constraints cannot compel them to accept a particular theory” (Longino 2002: 128).

Longino (2002), however, understands knowledge following a transcendental or meta- contextual approach of representation. In other words, she posits the presence of an objective referential standpoint. Upon this, she holds, it is possible to establish if a determined “model”, or theory, “fits” certain aspects of reality. She concurs, however, with the sociologists in the sense that the choice of these models may also depend on goals (2002: 118). Models may be chosen socially, but only amongst those that “conform” (2002: 89). Knowledge, then, is an honorific term awarded to content that successfully describes or predicts (Longino 2002: 121).

By combining this philosophical notion of knowledge with the social practices involved in knowledge-production, Longino arrives at a definition of knowledge, based on her notion of “social-rationality”:

Some content A is epistemically acceptable in community C at time t if A is supported by data d evident to C at t in light of reasoning and background assumptions which have survived critical scrutiny from as many perspectives as are available to C at t, and C is characterised by venues for criticism, uptake of

criticism, public standards, and tempered equally of intellectual authority (Longino 2002: 135).

Longino’s (2002) is committed to naturalism to a great degree. It can be clearly seen here, how, differently than Quine (1995a, 195c), Longino accounts for the normative relationship between different agents in a naturalist manner. As might be recalled, norms require two domains: the realised and the standard (or the ideal). In nature, one can only find these two domains occurring within a pursuit of outcome: the standard corresponds to the desired state, and the realised to the diagnosed circumstances. Norms, including epistemological determinations, can only be understood as part of the departure point (or the referential standpoint) for the pursuit of outcome. This includes semantic order and expectation. From a social perspective, then, the only non-arbitrary norm is one expressly agreed by the members. Those (B) under the consequence of norms which they have not agreed upon are then, from this perspective, subject to determinations pursuant to reference determined by others (A). In this regard, Longino’s (2002) account of norms seems to contextualize reference within discussion and deliberation.

Longino’s naturalism, however, is limited, as she does posit a “predetermined” reference that operates within the system independently of context or site. It is constituted by objective “fitness” of “models” (her preferred understanding of theory) to “reality”. This is actually the only component of her account that excludes her from the naturalist camp. This component saves her, as well, from the conundrums of circularity: her account, I presume, is to be counted amongst that which “fits”.

Longino’s (2002) account would seem to be perfectly successful at first glance. Her de- contextualizing jump seems to be harmless. That which “fits”, however, is still nevertheless independent of context. It is easier to illustrate exactly where this minimal component of transcendentalism may be problematic, by comparing her account to Fuller’s social epistemology (Fuller 2002, 2007a, 2009; Fuller and Collier 2004).

Like Quine (1969b) Fuller, although avoiding defining knowledge in a priori terms, also holds knowledge and science to be evidentially positive matters. Unlike Quine (1995a, 1995b, 1995c), Fuller (2002, 1993; Fuller and Collier 2004) is not out to explain knowledge as we currently assume it, or explain what role knowledge plays in justifying the status quo of knowledge producing practices. Fuller (2002), rather, supported on empirical evidence provided by the social sciences, is out to find exactly what’s going on in science without assuming that knowledge is what we currently think it is, but assuming, nevertheless, that it is a positive matter.

Fuller (2002) takes the empirical evidence provided by the social sciences seriously, and therefore holds that a source of authority (X) that is un-revisable, non-contingent to the causal forces of its spatial-temporal context, and un-situated in nature, is unwarranted. If this is the case, and science’s validity is different to that which legitimises its cognitive hierarchy, then in a situation such as that described above, the primary incentive of science’s highest ranking members (A+) is to maintain or further the hierarchical structure of the establishment, in spite of the consequences this may have for the production of knowledge.

From a naturalist perspective, in which it is doubtful whether it is possible to delimit science, and/or areas of expertise in non social and therefore purely epistemological grounds, this results in various practical and political problems related to the production of knowledge. They take the form of a vicious circle in which science’s interests and incentives as a class (A) are geared towards furthering the gap between them and the rest (B) so as to reduce competition as well as necessary risk seeking and taking (Fuller 2000: 7-46). This may work in the following ways:

- _{The scientific hierarchy is able to set the evaluation criteria of its own activity.}

That is, it establishes the appropriateness of methods. As the benchmarks of “progress” or “improvement” are altered to benefit the current orthodoxy, the history of standards is altered as well, so that it appears that the current situation would also seem positive from the perspective of previous times (Fuller 2000: 10, 2002: xx-xxi, 2007a: 25).

- _{With new theories or research approaches that might seriously challenge the}

current orthodoxy and therefore the hierarchical arrangement of the discipline in question, the lack of external scrutiny allows the established structure to decide how will they incorporate or import theories into their research. In this sense, it is then in their best interests to “capitalise on their initial conceptions, and ignore – not test – the theories that challenge” these (Fuller and Collier 2004: 32). Furthermore, as scientific research begins to increase in terms of scale, growing in terms of “size, complexity, hierarchical level and [required] material investment”, the incentives to allow challenges are reduced dramatically (Fuller 2000: 29).

- _{If, however, a significant challenge is being posed from within (scientific}

hierarchy), or a specific scientific movement manages to acquire the social, political and economic capital required to compete against the established status, the former competitor will most probably not disappear, but rather a new discipline will find its place amongst the others. Two disciplines may then have

orthogonal objects of study, (such as cognitive psychology and

neurophysiology). This is equivalent to a spatial (as opposed to a temporal) paradigm shift in Khunian (1970) terms. In this sense, “disciplinary boundaries many be seen as fault lines that conceal future scientific revolutions” (Fuller 2002: 195). In this regard, maximising the available pool of research funds would not necessarily translate into increased knowledge production but rather “enable all to continue on their current trajectories as they see fit” (Fuller and Collier 2004: 43).

All true scientific progress, then, can be understood as a transgression of boundaries, since it is precisely the scientific hierarchy in its horizontal dimension that serves as the most pressing social epistemological problem. This doesn’t imply that, under the organisational assumptions at hand, scientific research will not lead to any results that might translate into practical benefits. It does mean, however, that the incentives are not geared to that purpose, but rather to the maintenance of the present status, the accumulation of resources, and the increased cognitive separation between “expert” and “layman”. As this takes place, the layman begins to rely increasingly on the opinions of experts, to the point where a greater number of issues are increasingly removed from the arena of public debate and placed under testimony of “scientists” (Fuller 2002: 11). This leads to the main political problem that arises from this situation, namely that:

carried to its logical extreme, cognitive authoritarianism of this sort would claim that the only decision that the public is entitled to make is to fund more social scientific research to determine the identity of the ‘public interest’ from the many misleading things that people say and do (2002: 287).

In light of the above, the question arises of how science is to be organised. For Fuller (2002), the endeavour of naturalist epistemology involves the continuous search, revision and scrutiny of what knowledge is, and of what precisely the “ends of knowledge” are. Social epistemologists would be charged with conducting such research. In Meta-theoretical terms, “knowledge” is not defined. Nor is “epistemic”, “semantic” or “cognitive” utility, fortune or success. The social epistemologist would constantly operate in media res, treating each studied case of knowledge production as the best case of knowledge production and then judging its fortune upon its own terms in order to produce prescriptive import for the future (2002: 24-30).

This still leaves open the second component of the naturalist vs. normative conundrum. The revise-ability and changeability at the base of all socio-epistemic prescription recognised by Fuller’s meta-theory (or in other words his commitment to hypothetical attitude such as that of Quine [1969b]), would eliminate positive capacity of all prescription. For Fuller, however, normative import does not, in fact cannot, result from the account itself. This would constitute an attempt at normative “internalism” and thereby result in a necessary collapse into meta-contextual or transcendental epistemology (and/or positivity tout court). There is, however, another choice. In Fuller’s (1993) words, although there might not be “an epistemically privileged mechanism of conferring epistemic privilege it does not follow that there is no non-epistemically privileged way of conferring privilege” (Fuller 1993: 107; Fuller

and Collier 2004: 90). Epistemic privilege, according to Fuller (2002) is a social function (2002: 188-9) and thereby, epistemic consequence is contextually determined.

Following this line of reasoning, it is easy enough to determine where Fuller (2000, 1997; Fuller and Collier 2004) finds the source of contextual normative consequence (X). He finds it in (B) those affected by the endeavour of research, either economically, or on account of the possible implications of its claims. In short, Fuller (1997) holds that science, for both epistemological and political reasons, should be responsible towards those its conduct may affect. Specifically:

1. If scientific knowledge is indeed a ‘public good’, then the government needs to scrutinise both the rate and the distribution of return on the public’s investment in science.

2. If scientific knowledge is not a public good, then special interest groups should invest in the sorts of inquiries that are most likely to serve in their respective constituencies. This will involve considerations of both the process by which knowledge is produced and the products themselves. In addition, raising the support needed to produce a favoured form of knowledge may require expanding the base constituency through proselytizing and marketing” (1997: 3). In order to achieve the above, Fuller’s political social epistemology proposes a complex and sophisticated project that seeks to subject scientific practices to wider social scrutiny, by appealing to the elaboration of a republican constitutional regime for science. In this, the currently assumed “transcendental” authorities are replaced by social counterparts that have a final direct link to those directly interested in the production of knowledge (Fuller 2000: 100-55, Fuller and Collier 2004: 187-260).

Identifying this situation as a pressing political – but most importantly socio- epistemological – problem, Fuller’s program seeks to address the situation by prescribing a new set of normative principles for the organisation of science. The project basically involves reorganising all scientific efforts upon the principles of “the civic republican tradition of democracy” (Fuller 2000: 11). In practice, this would translate into a “constitution of science” whose prescriptions would provide the necessary social and political scrutiny for cognitive authority that seems to be unnecessary for traditional epistemology and absent in the current status quo. The general spirit behind such a suggestion is to “recast disciplinary boundaries as artificial barriers to the transaction of knowledge claims” (Fuller and Collier 2004: 31), and to place researchers “in direct competition with one another where they previously were not”, in order to force them to account for their findings “not only to their own discipline’s practitioners, but also to the practitioners of other disciplines and maybe even the public” (2004: 23).

The hypothesis is that such a regime would transform the normative dimension of science from its current “geometrical” model, in which the normative component is understood as located in a higher (metaphysical/epistemic) ground, into a “dialectical” model, in which a meta-normative form (i.e. epistemic republican constitutionalism) allows the normative dimension (i.e. principles for production and epistemic judgement) to be in constant conflict with the empirical dimension or the practice of science. This locates all knowledge within the possibility of scrutiny and change, subjecting all cognitive hierarchy to the same conditions. In short, it leads to the “perpetual project of preventing any form of knowledge from becoming a vehicle of power” (see Fuller 2000, 2002; Fuller and Collier 2004).

It is now easier to see the how Longino’s (2002) objective framework may be problematic. As outlined above, she proposed a contextual understanding of knowledge, based in her contextual understanding of rationality. The key feature of her proposal read as follows: “content A” counts as “knowledge” in a determined community C at a determined t as long as it “survived […] scrutiny from as many perspectives available at C and C is characterised by venues for criticism”. The only limit she places on her seemingly all-inclusive social account of rationality is an objective referential, which she holds is able to determine if a specific “model”, or theory, “fits” certain aspects of reality.

In comparison with Fuller’s (1997, 2000; Fuller and Collier 2004) account, Longino’s (2002) objective standard seems either redundant or problematic. That is, if it is designed to allow some (A) to determine that the cognitive/epistemic participation of others (B) does not “fit” the standard (X) and thereby cannot form part of the discussion C, then Longino’s ideal epistemic circumstances are identical or closely related to those Fuller is attempting to amend. If this is not the case, and (X) is not designed to provide some (A) with the capacity to evaluate the cognitive/epistemic products of others (B), then Longino’s (2002) ideal epistemic circumstances would seem to include society-at-large, and would thereby be reduced to something very similar to what Fuller (2002) is trying to propose.

Steve Fuller’s attempt, therefore, seems to be the most viable proposal for a normative framework that avoids falling into any sort of epistemological transcendentalism. The attempt, however, also seems to be laden with crippling flaws.

3.4.2 Problems of the Republic of Science

Fuller’s (2002) account takes off from epistemological naturalism. That is, it continues from the results of the strict and disciplined, specifically sociological, scrutiny of science’s assumed meta-contextual frame of reference (i.e. SPSSK and STS). In this sense, Fuller’s proposal begins by taking the contextualisation of science’s referential framework seriously. In response, however, Fuller offers another meta-contextual framework for positive value determination and prescription: a universalist political framework of reference. As a sociologist, his answer to the identified problem finds itself at odds with the very same reasons that prompted such an answer. In other words, the identified problem resides in the fact that sociological scrutiny finds all referential frameworks to be contingent on context. This means that the characteristics of a determined referential framework, are contingent on the circumstances from which they result. They respond to the pursuit of an outcome that, in sociological terms, cannot be anything but an outcome determined by those who have the power to do so.

In the words of Joe Rouse (1991), Fuller’s proposal constitutes “disembodied policy for embodied knowledge”.

Fuller (1991) responds as a philosopher, claiming that evaluative rhetoric and normativity are a “transcendental condition of society”, as they are necessary for its possibility. What needs to be done, rather, is to create circumstances that allow for complete openness as to which practices will embody the norms and values of a society. If this is granted, from the perspective of political and legal philosophy, the question remains of whether Fuller’s republic of science, as proposed, would be able to achieve such a feat.

It would initially seem so. In practice, constitutions that purport to follow principles such as those endorsed by Fuller (2000: 11-27) do seem to provide the means for revision, correction and challenge of every principle (and therefore every social focus of value) they contain, including their own tenets. Article Five of the Constitution of the United States of America and Article 135 of the Constitution of the Mexican United States are both examples of the above. Civic republican constitutionalism would, in effect, work as viable means to subject the organisation of science to a dialectical