PhilSci Archive

Is Science Neurotic?

Maxwell, Nicholas (2002) Is Science Neurotic? UNSPECIFIED.

[img] Microsoft Word (.doc)
Download (196Kb)

    Abstract

    Neurosis can be interpreted as a methodological condition which any aim-pursuing entity can suffer from. If such an entity pursues a problematic aim B, represents to itself that it is pursuing a different aim C, and as a result fails to solve the problems associated with B which, if solved, would lead to the pursuit of aim A, then the entity may be said to be "rationalistically neurotic". Natural science is neurotic in this sense in so far as a basic aim of science is represented to be to improve knowledge of factual truth as such (aim C), when actually the aim of science is to improve knowledge of explanatory truth (aim B). Science does not suffer too much from this neurosis, but philosophy of science does. Much more serious is the rationalistic neurosis of the social sciences, and of academic inquiry more generally. Freeing social science and academic inquiry from neurosis would have far reaching, beneficial, intellectual, institutional and cultural consequences.


    Export/Citation:EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL
    Social Networking:

    Item Type: Other
    Additional Information: An expanded version of this paper has been published as a book, namely: Nicholas Maxwell, "Is Science Neurotic?" (Imperial College Press, London, December 2004)
    Keywords: physics, natural science, social science, psychoanalysis, neurosis, scientific method, rationality, academic inquiry, metaphysics, values,
    Subjects: General Issues > Science and Society
    General Issues > Values In Science
    General Issues > Science Policy
    Depositing User: Nicholas Maxwell
    Date Deposited: 03 Aug 2005
    Last Modified: 07 Oct 2010 11:13
    Item ID: 2386
    Public Domain: No
    URI: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/2386

    Actions (login required)

    View Item

    Document Downloads