Philosophy in the so-called big science
Abstract
Both our understanding of the term “science”, and that which it is employed to refer to, have undergone significant changes over the centuries. The 20th century, in particular, has seen important transformations within science and, in consequence, heated debate. One important transformation, rarely noticed by philosophers of science, has been the emergence of large-scale research projects of the sort often referred to as “big science”. Such projects require science to be organized, and function, in quite new ways. Their influence upon science, construed as an activity and an institution, has been very great indeed - as has been their impact on our understanding of what it is that such activities ultimately produce (theories, hypotheses). The aim of this article is to identify and spell out the philosophical aspects of this scenario as it pertains to science. I begin with an outline of the historical development of big science. Then, with reference to other scholars, I try to establish a definition of it. I briefly point to some developments in 20th century philosophy of science, and argue for the need to construct a distinctive philosophy of big science itself. The latter, I claim, should construe the philosophy of science in terms broad enough to be adequate for the analysis of a number of issues emerging in the context of the most developed branches of the natural sciences. I review a selection of these issues in the last part of my article.References
Ackermann, R. (1989), 'The new experimentalism', British Journal for Philosophy of Science(40(2)), 185--190.
Agazzi, E. (1997), Dobro, zło i~nauka. Etyczny wymiar działalności naukowo-technicznej, Oficyna Akademicka OAK, Warszawa.
Amsterdamski, S. (1983), Między historią a metodą. Spory o racjonalność nauki, PIW, Warszawa.
Baird, D. & Faust, T. (1990), 'Scientific instruments, scientific progress and the cyclotron', The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science(41(2)), 147--175.
Baker, G. & Kitcher, P. (2014), Philosophy of science. A~new introduction, Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford.
Białas, A.Heller, M.; Polak, P.; Mączka, J. & Szczerbińska-Polak, M., ed., (2009), Nauka, media, uczeni, Wydawnictwo Biblos, Tarnów, pp. 11--15.
Bush, V. (), Science — The endless frontier. A~Report to the President by Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, July 1945.
Fay, C. N. (1912), Big business and government, Moffat, Yard & Company, New York.
Galison, P.Galison, P. & Hevly, B., ed., (1992), Introduction: The many faces of big science, Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 1--17.
Geymonat, L. (1966), Filozofia a~filozofia nauki, PWN, Warszawa.
Giere, R. N.Newton-Smith, W. H., ed., (2001), Theories, Blackwell, Malden MA, Oxford, pp. 515--524.
Giudice, G. F. (2011), Big science and the Large Hadron Collider.
Goćkowski, J. (1996), Ethos nauki i~role uczonych, Wydawnictwo i~Drukarnia „Secesja”, Kraków.
Hajduk, Z. (1978), 'Tradycyjny i~deskryptywny sposób rekonstruowania teorii empirycznych', Roczniki Filozoficzne(26(3)), 21--37.
Hajduk, Z. (1996), 'Wartościowanie w~technologii', Roczniki Filozoficzne(44(3)), 5--33.
Hajduk, Z. (2012), Filozofia nauk przyrodniczych. Uaktualniony wybór elementarnych kwestii, Wydawnictwo KUL, Lublin.
Hevly, B.Galison, P. & Hevly, B., ed., (1992), Afterword: Reflections on big science and big history, Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 355--363.
JMK (), 'Wielka nauka i~jej problemy'.
Kamiński, S.Bronk, A., ed. (1992), Nauka i~metoda. Pojęcie nauki i~klasyfikacja nauk, Pisma wybrane, Vol. 4, Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL, Lublin.
Kitcher, P. (2012), Philosophy of science, Encyclopæedia Britannica, inc..
Kunicki-Goldfinger, W. J. H.Goćkowski, J. & Pigoń, K., ed., (1991), Problemy moralne poznania naukowego i~zastosowań nauki, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Polska Akademia Nauk, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, pp. 95--106.
Poznański, J. (2014), 'Niekończący się postęp i~nieusuwalne granice nauki', Rocznik Filozoficzny Ignatianum(20(2)), 80--90.
Poznański, J. (2014), 'Postęp i~granice nauk przyrodniczych w~ujęciu Nicholasa Reschera', PhD thesis, Wydział Filozoficzny, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła~II.
Quay, P. M. (1974), 'Progress as a~demarcation criterion for science', Philosophy of Science(41(2)), 154--170.
Rescher, N. (1977), Methodological pragmatism. A~systems-theoretic approach to the theory of knowledge, Blackwell, Oxford.
Rescher, N. (1978), Scientific progress. A~philosophical essay on the economics of research in natural science, Blackwell, Oxford.
Rescher, N. (1999), The limits of science, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934), The theory of economic development. An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1939), Business cycles. A~theoretical, historical, and statistical analysis of the capitalist process, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
de Solla Price & J., D. (1967), Mała nauka — wielka nauka, PWN, Warszawa.
de Solla Price & J., D. (1986), Little science, big science… and beyond, Columbia University Press, New York.
Vermeulen, N. (2010), Supersizing science. On building large-scale research projects in biology, Dissertation.com, Boca Raton (USA).
Vermeulen, N. (2016), 'Big Biology: Supersizing science during the emergence of the 21st century', NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin(24(2)), 195--223.
Vermeulen, N.; Parker, J. N. & Penders, B. (2010), 'Big, small or mezzo? Lessons from science studies for the ongoing debate about „big” versus „little” research projects', European Molecular Biology Organization Reports(11(6)), 420--423.
Vermeulen, N. & Penders, B.Cleveland, C. J., ed., (2007), Big science, Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington.
Weinberg, A. M. (1961), 'Impact of large-scale science on the United States', Science(134(3473)), 161--164.
Weinberg, A. M. (1967), Reflections on Big Science, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Weinberg, S. (2012), 'The crisis of big science', The New York Review of Books(59(8)), 59--62.
Zeidler, P.Sobczyńska, D. & Zeidler, P., ed., (1994), Nowy eksperymentalizm a~teoretycyzm. Spór o~przedmiot i~sposób uprawiania filozofii nauki, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań, pp. 87--108.
The Yearbook only accepts materials for publication that are free of all conflicts of interest, and that in no way involve conflicts over authorship, copyright, etc. The Editors will take action against any cases of plagiarizing, ghostwriting1, guest/honorary authorship2, etc. Where co-authored work is concerned, the Author listed first is expected to take responsibility for the submission, and is required to make clear the contributions of all of the Co-Authors involved. In the event of the publication owing its existence to funding dedicated to this purpose, this fact should be made clear: e.g. in any note of thanks/acknowledgement, or in a footnote, etc. Explicit notification should be given of any form of reprinting, with the appropriate evidence of permission to publish being furnished as required. Any impropriety on the part of Authors/Reviewers risks exposing them to appropriate responses from the relevant institutions.
______
1 This term refers to instances of a person who has made an essential contribution being omitted from the list of authors, or from notes conveying gratitude and/or acknowledgement.
2 This occurs when a person who has made either an insignificant contribution or no contribution at all nevertheless appears on the list of authors.
