Bioethics as the ‘Third Culture’: Integrating Science and Humanities, Preventing ‘Normative Violence’
Published:
Jan 11, 2019
Keywords:
Kuhn Snow Collingwood Davidson Carnap Rorty reasons causes Bioethics
Abstract
Integrative Bioethics engages in descriptive and normative fields, or in two cultures, as Snow puts it in The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, announcing though, in his later writings the emergence of a third culture that can mediate between the two. Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions exposes the practice of a new paradigm of the teaching of history describing in fact the relation of science and humanities in the positivist era. The long standing reasons-causes debate that lay the groundwork of the implied incompatibility of the two cultures, as it reflects on the Collingwoodian anti-causalism of the philosophy of history, against Davidsonian causalism, may elucidate the problem of the ‘marriage’ of cultures. Taking a look on Collingwood’s absolute presuppositions and Carnap’s external to linguistic frameworks questions, will help us investigate the possibility of a coherent framework for integrated Bioethics. Can we frame a transdisciplinary field, where science and humanities as collaborating social practices, or as a new ‘cultural policy’ (according to Richard Rorty), will abstain from normative violence against each other?
Article Details
- How to Cite
-
Boutlas, G. (2019). Bioethics as the ‘Third Culture’: Integrating Science and Humanities, Preventing ‘Normative Violence’. Conatus - Journal of Philosophy, 3(1), 9–29. https://doi.org/10.12681/conatus.16011
- Section
- Articles
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (preferably in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Anscombe, G.E.M. Human Life, Action and Ethics. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2006.
Carnap, Rudolf. “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology”. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4 (1950): 20-40.
Chutchland, Paul. “Eliminative Materialism”. In Philosophy of Mind, edited by Timothy O’Connor and David Robb, 391-412. London and New York: Routledge, 2003.
Collingwood, R. G. An Essay on Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, I948.
Crane, T. Elements of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
D’Oro, Giuseppina. “Unlikely Bedfellows? Collingwood, Carnap and the Internal/External Distinction”. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 23, no. 4 (2015): 802-817.
D’Oro, Giussepina. “The Ontological Backlash: Why did Mainstream Analytic Philosophy Lose Interest in the Philosophy of History?”. Philosophia 36, no.4 (2008): 403-415.
Davidson, Donald. Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980.
Galison, Peter. “History, Philosophy, and the Central Metaphor”. Science in Context 2, no.1 (1988): 197-212.
Habermas, Jürgen. The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003.
Jantsch, Erich. “Towards Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity in Education and Innovation”. Interdisciplinarity – Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities (1972): 97-121. Paris: CERI OECD.
Kelly, Susan E. “Public Bioethics and Publics: Consensus, Boundaries, and Participation in Biomedical Science Policy”. Science, Technology, & Human Values 28, no. 3 (2003): 339-364.
Kim, Jaegwon. “Mechanism and Explanation”. In The Philosophy of Action, edited by Alfred Mele, 256-282. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Kindi, Vasso. “Should Science Teaching Involve the History of Science? An Assessment of Kuhn’s View”. Science & Education 14 (2005): 727-28.
Kuhn, Thomas S. Structure of Scientific Revolutions. London: The University of Chicago Press, 1970.
Mauser, Wolfram, Klepper Gernot, Rice Martin, Schmalzbauer Bettina-Susanne, Hackmann Heide, Leemans Rik, and Moore Howard. “Transdisciplinary Global Change Research: The Co-creation of Knowledge for Sustainability”. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5 (2013): 420–431.
McDowell, John. Mind and World. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000.
Mittelstrass, Jürgen. “On Transdisciplinarity”. Trames Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 15, no. 4 (2011): 329–338.
Nagel, Thomas. The View from Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
Nussbaum, Martha C. Not For Profit Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2010.
Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. Biomedical Ethics in U.S. Public Policy –Background Paper. OTA-BP-BBS-1O5. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993.
Rorty, Richard. “Introduction”. In Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind, edited by Wilfrid Sellars. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1997.
Rorty, Richard. Philosophy as Cultural Politics. Philosophical Papers, Volume 4. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Snow, C. P. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1961.
