Endla Lõhkivi: potential topics of supervision
1. Conceptual change in the (history) of science
Scientific theories have been replaced by new and supposedly better ones through the history of contemporary science. With every such a change new theoretical concepts have been introduced. How should one understand the conceptual change, how does it occur, on what ground, etc?
Andersen, H., Barker, P., Chen, X. (2006). The Cognitive Structures of Scientific Revolutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bird, A. (2002) Kuhn’s wrong turning Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 33, 443–463.
2. Interdisciplinarity in philosophy of science perspective
Philosophy of science has until recently dealt only with disciplinary scientific research and the epistemic issues emerging from the collaborating disciplines have not been investigated thoroughly. For instance the issue of epistemic dependence of the representatives of different disciplines necessary in interdisciplinary research groups: how are trust and reliability achieved and sustained in the research practice?
Andersen, H. (2016) „Collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and the epistemology of contemporary science“ Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 56 (2016) 1-10.
Huutoniemi, K. “Interdisciplinarity as Academic Accountability: Prospects for Quality Control Across Disciplinary Boundaries.” Social Epistemology 30, no. 2 (2016): 163-185.
Klein J Thompson 1990. Interdisciplinarity: history, theory, and practice. Wayne State University, Detroit.
Nagatsu & MacLeod 2018. “What does interdisciplinarity look like in practice: Mapping interdisciplinarity and its limits in the environmental sciences” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A.
Osbeck Lisa & M. Nancy J. Nersessian 2017. „Epistemic Identities in Interdisciplinary Science" Perspectives on Science 2017, vol. 25, no. 2, 226-260.
3. Social nature of scientific knowledge
It has become a common sense that scientific research and knowledge produced in the sciences are essentially social, as research is a collective work and knowledge produced is collectively evaluated and acknowledged in the course of social procedures. What makes these procedures essentially social? Can’t they be reduced and explained via interacting individuals’ intentions?
Kusch, M. (2010), „Social Epistemology“, in Sven Bernecker und Duncan Pritchard (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Epistemology, London: Routledge, 873-884.
Kusch, M. (2002) Knowledge by agreement, Oxford University Press.
4. Epistemic injustice
When research outcomes in science are evaluated not on the basis of epistemic criteria, but rather it’s power relations and social position in the organization that determine the result, it is called epistemic injustice. It may lead to the exclusion of certain socially marginal groups from science and thus their perspectives and input will be lost. In actual research situations, epistemic injustice appears via a chain of minor evaluations and exclusions. How to identify those and how to avoid epistemic injustice?
Wylie, A. (2011). What knowers know well: women, work and the academy. In H. E. Grasswick (Ed.). Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science: Power in Knowledge (157-179). Heidelberg, London, New York: Dordrecht.
B. Wray 2007 „Evaluating Scientists: Examining the Effects of Sexism and Nepotism,“ Value-free Science? Ideals and Illusions, ed by H. Kincaid, J. Dupré & A. Wylie, OUP, 87-106
5. How matter comes to matter? The role of instruments and technology in knowledge production
In contemporary epistemology of science, material circumstances, practices and equipment have been recognized as playing an important role in knowledge production. Why and how?
D. Baird 2004 Thing Knowledge, University of California Press.
K. Barad 2003 „Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter“ In Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 28, no. 3.
A. Wylie 2002 Thinking from Things Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology University of California Press.
B. Latour 1983 Give me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World. In Science Observed: Perspectives in the Social Study of Science. Knorr-Cetina & Mulkay, eds. London: Sage Publications, 141 – 70.
B. Latour 1993 We have never been modern, Harvard University Press.
B. Latour 2014 Me pole kunagi olnud modernsed, Tallinna Ülikooli kirjastus.