Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-hw7sx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T21:59:18.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpretation Versus Explanation in the Critique of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Helen E. Longino
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , Spring 1997 , pp. 113 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Altmann, Jeanne. 1974. “Observational Study of Behavior: Sampling Methods.” Behavior 49:227–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, Barry. 1977. Interests and the Growth of Knowledge. Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Churchland, Paul. 1985. “The Ontological Status of Observables: In Praise of the Superempirical Virtues.” In Images of Science, edited by Churchland, Paul and Hooker, Clifford. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ferber, Marianne and Julie, Nelson, eds. 1993. Beyond Economic Man. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Arthur. 1984. “And Not Anti-Realism Either.” Nous 18:51–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haraway, Donna. 1986. “Primatology is Politics by Other Means.” In Feminist Approaches to Science, edited by Bleier, Ruth. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1992. “The Promises of Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for Inappropriate/d Others.” In Cultural Studies, edited by Grossberg, L., Nelson, C., and Treichler, P.. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn. F. 1983. A Feeling for the Organism. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn. F. 1985. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge.: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1992. “The Couch, the Cathedral, and the Laboratory.” In Science as Culture and Practice, edited by Pickering, Andrew. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, Karin, and Amman, Klaus. 1990. “The Fixation of (Visual) Evidence.” In Representation in Scientific Practice, edited by Lynch, Michael and Woolgar, Steve. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1977. The Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1983. “Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World.” In Science Observed, edited by Knorr-Cetina, K. and Mulkay, Michael.: Sage.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1988. The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1990. “Postmodern? No, Simply Amodern.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, Bruno, and Steve, Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life.: Sage.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 1995. “Gender, Politics, and the Theoretical Virtues.” Synthese 104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar