Isis Current Bibliography 2010 - History of Science Society

10 11. Sociological & psychological analysis
145. ARNASON, Gardar Agust. “Politics of Truth: A
Critique of Science and Power with Constant Reference
to Michel Foucault.” Diss. Abstr. Int. A 69/06
(2008).
Dissertation at University of Toronto (Canada),
2006. Pub. no. AAT NR39980. 227 pp. Focuses on
the scientific studies of left-handers and Icelanders.
146. BOGHOSSIAN, Paul. Fear of Knowledge:
Against Relativism and Constructivism. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 2005. ISBN: 019928718X.
Reviews: [ref. 47]
147. CARRIER, Martin, Don HOWARD, and Janet
KOURANY. (Eds.) The Challenge of the Social and
the Pressure of Practice: Science and Values Revisited.
(vii + 262 pp.; bibl.; index.) Pittsburgh: University
of Pittsburgh Press, 2008. ISBN: 9780822943174.
Contents: Martin CARRIER, “Introduction: Science
and the Social,” 1-16; John D. NORTON,
“Must Evidence Underdetermine Theory?” 17-44;
Margaret MORRISON, “Values and Their Intersection:
Reduction as Methodology and Ideology,”
45-67; Helen E. LONGINO, “Values, Heuristics,
and the Politics of Knowledge,” 68-86; Janet A.
KOURANY, “Replacing the Ideal of Value-Free
Science,” 87-111; Jay F. ROSENBERG, “Scientific
Values and the Values of Science,” 112-130; Peter
WEINGART, “How Robust Is ‘Socially Robust
Knowledge’?” 131-145; Roger STRAND, “In Defense
of Some Sweeping Claims about Socially
Robust Knowledge,” 146-159; Christopher HAM-
LIN, “Third Wave Science Studies: Toward a History
and Philosophy of Expertise,” 160-188; James
Robert BROWN, “The Community of Science R○ ,”
189-216; Martin CARRIER, “Science in the Grip
of the Economy: On the Epistemic Impact of
the Commercialization of Research,” 217-234
[ref. 3708]; Matthias ADAM, “Promoting Disinterestedness
or Making Use of Bias? Interests and
Moral Obligation in Commercialized Research,”
235-255 [ref. 187].
Reviews: [ref. R143]
148. CHEN, Xiang, and Peter BARKER. “Process
Concepts and Cognitive Obstacles to Change: Perspectives
on the History of Science and Science Policy.”
“Spotlight on: The Nature of Scientific Change”
[ref. 1900]. Centaurus 51 (2009): 314–320.
149. DAVID, Matthew. Science in Society. (xiii + 199
pp.; bibl.; index.) New York: Palgrave Macmillan,
2005. ISBN: 9780333993477.
Reviews: [ref. 54]
150. DEBRU, Claude. “Über Georges Canguilhems
Was heißt eine wissenschaftliche Ideologie? und über
deutsch-französische Beiträge zum Thema Wissenschaft
und Ideologie aus den letzten vierzig Jahren.”
Ber. Wissenschaftsgesch. 33 (2010): 147–156.
151. EDWARDS, David. Artscience: Creativity in
the Post-Google Generation. (194 pp.; bibl.; ill.)
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008. ISBN:
9780674026254.
On how creative breakthroughs in art and science
take place.
152. FAGAN, Melinda B. “Fleck and the Social Constitution
of Scientific Objectivity.” Stud. Hist. Phil.
Biol. Biomed. Sci. 40 (2009): 272–285.
153. FISCH, Menachem. “Taking the Linguistic
Turn Seriously.” Part of a symosium on disciplinary
distinctions in science and the humanities. [ref. 3685].
Eur. Legacy 13 (2008): 605–622.
154. FRASER, Mariam. “Introduction: Intimacy in
Research.” Introduction to a special issue. Hist. Hum.
Sci. 21, no. 4 (2008): 1–16.
Articles explore how researchers develop intimacy
through sensory, emotional, and affective relations
as they perform research, as well as the ramifications
of this in terms of knowledge, power, and
ethical concerns. Contents: Carolyn STEEDMAN,
“Intimacy in Research: Accounting for It,” 17–
33 [ref. 46]; Bronwyn C. PARRY, “Inventing Iris:
Negotiating the Unexpected Spatialities of Intimacy,”
34–48; Julia O’Connell DAVIDSON, “If No
Means No, Does Yes Mean Yes? Consenting to
Research Intimacies,” 49–67; Mónica G. Moreno
FIGUEROA, “Looking Emotionally: Photography,
Racism and Intimacy in Research,” 68–85; Simon
COHN, “Making Objective Facts from Intimate
Relations: The Case of Neuroscience and Its Entanglements
with Volunteers,” 86–103 [ref. 3904];
Rebecca COLEMAN, “A Method of Intuition: Becoming,
Relationality, Ethics,” 104–123 [ref. 432].
155. GARBER, Daniel. “Galileo, Newton and All
That: If It Wasn’t a Scientific Revolution, What Was
It? (A Manifesto).” Circumscribere 7 (2009): 9–18.
156. GARCÍA DÍAZ, Paloma. “Los límites del principio
de indeterminación radical en Latour y el giro
político de su filosofía de la ciencia.” Theoria (0495-
4548) 23 (2008): 319–336.
157. GERHARDT, Uta. “Zäsuren und Zeitperspektiven.
Überlegungen zu ‘Wertfreiheit’ und ‘Objektivität’
als Problemen der Wissenschaftsgeschichte.”
In Kontinuitäten und Diskontinuitäten in der Wissenschaftsgeschichte
des 20. Jahrhunderts, edited by
BRUCH et al. (2006) [ref. 2871], 39–67.
158. HARDING, Robert. “Manuel Castells’s Technocultural
Epoch in ‘The Information Age.’ ” Part of a
special issue on “technoculture” and science fiction.
[ref. 212]. Science-Fiction Studies 33 (2006): 18–29.
159. HEATH, Christian, and Dirk vom LEHN. “Configuring
‘Interactivity’: Enhancing Engagement in
Science Centres and Museums.” Soc. Stud. Sci. 38
(2008): 63–91.
160. KARAFYLLIS, Nicole C., and Gotlind
ULSHÖFER. (Eds.) Sexualized Brains: Scientific
Modeling of Emotional Intelligence from a Cultural
Perspective. (xvii + 429 pp.; ill.; bibl.; in-