180124 EK Eingangskolloquium Methoden und Probleme (2022W)

(1) Geschichte:
(a) T. S. Kuhn, “Scientific Knowledge as Historical Product”, in T.S. Kuhn, The Last Writings of Thomas S. Kuhn, ed. by B. Mladenovic, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2022, 1-18
(b) L. Fleck, “The problem of epistemology” (1936), in R. S. Cohen and T. Schnelle (eds.), Cognition and Fact: Materials on Ludwik Fleck, Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986, 79-112.

(2) Realismus:
(a) J. Worrall, „Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds?“ in M. Lange (ed.), Philosophy of Science: An Anthology, Oxford, Blackwell, 2007, 262-277.
(b) L. Laudan, „A Confutation of Convergent Realism“, in M. Curd & J. A. Cover (eds.), Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, New York, 1998, 1114-1135.

(3) Modelle:
(a) M. Morgan, “Learning from Models”, in M. S. Morgan and M. Morrison (eds.), Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science, Cambridge, Cambridge UP, 1999: 347-388.
(b) T. Knuuttila, “Modeling and representing: an artefactual approach”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (2011): 262–271.

(4) Experimente:
(a) S. Shapin and S. Schaffer, “Seeing and Believing”, Shapin and Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump, Harvard, 1985: 22-78.
(b) H. M. Collins, “Detecting Gravitational Radiation: The Experimenters’ Regress, in Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1992: 79-111.

(5) Objektivität:
(a) L. Daston and P. Galison, “The Image of Objectivity”, Representations 40 (1992): 81-128.
(b) I. Koskinen, “Defending a Risk Account of Scientific Objectivity”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 71 (2020): 1187-1207.

(6) Werte:
(a) H. Longino, “Values, heuristics and the politics of knowledge”, Scientiae Studia 15(1) (2017): 39-57.
(b) H. Douglas, “Risk and Values in Science”, Philosophy of Science 67 (2000): 559-579.

(7) Historische Epistemologie:
(a) G. Canguilhem, “The Living and Its Milieu”, in Canguilhem, Knowledge of Life, New York, 2008, 98-120.
(b) J. Schickore, “The Significance of Re-Doing Experiments: A Contribution to Historically Informed Methodology”, Erkenntnis 75 (2011): 325-347.

(8) Feministische Umweltforschung:
(a) C. Merchant, “Dominion over Nature”, in Merchant, The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution, San Francisco, 1980, 164-191.
(b) C. Merchant, “The Mechanical Order”, in Merchant, The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution, San Francisco, 1980, 192-216.

(9) Technik:
(a) T. Pinch and W. Bijker, “The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other‘, Social Studies of Science14(3)(1984): 399-44.
(b) J. Wajcman, “Feminist Theories of Technology”, Cambridge Journal of Economics 34 (2010): 143-152.

(10) Actor-Network Theorie:
(a) B. Latour, “Circulating Reference: Sampling the Soil in the Amazon Forest”, in B. Latour, Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1999, 24-79.
(b) B. Latour, “Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern”, Critical Inquiry 30 (2004): 225-248.

(11) Ontological Politics:
(a) Mol, A., “Ontological Politics. A Word and Some Questions”, The Sociological Review 47 (1999): 74–89.
(b) Woolgar, S. and J. Lezaun, “The wrong bin bag: A turn to ontology in science and technology studies?” Social Studies of Science 43 (2013): 321-340.

(12) Feminismus / Formen des Wissens:
(a) M. Puig de la Bellacasa, “Matters of Care in Technoscience: Assembling Neglected Things”, Social Studies of Science 41 (2011): 85–106.
(b) D. Ludwig and D. A. Weiskopf, “Ethnoontology: Ways of world-building across cultures”, Philosophy Compass 2019: 1-11.

(13) Pluralism/Perspectivism:
(a) M. Massimi, “Realism, perspectivism, and disagreement in science”, Synthese 21: 56115-56141.
(b) H. Chang, “Pluralism in Science: A Call to Action”, in: Is Water H2O?