References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 October 2025
Edited by
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Science and HumanismKnowledge, Values, and the Common Good, pp. 286 - 320Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
- Creative Commons
This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/cclicenses/
References
Abrams, Z. 2020: “A Time for Reckoning and Healing: Psychologists Have a Role to Play in Addressing Inequities and Achieving True Systemic Change,” American Psychological Association. www.apa.org/news/apa/2020/reckoning-healing.10.1037/e506102020-001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, W. 1991: “Aesthetics: Liberating the Senses,” in The Cambridge Companion to Marx, Carver, Terrell (ed.), 246–274. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CCOL0521366259.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Addams, J. 2002/1902: Democracy and Social Ethics, Seigfried, C. H. (ed.). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
AEA Executive Committee 2020: “Statement from the AEA Executive Committee,” American Economic Association. www.aeaweb.org/news/member-announcements-june-5-2020.Google Scholar
Alberts, B., Kirschner, M. W., Tilghman, S., and Varmus, H. 2014: “Rescuing US Biomedical Research from Its Systemic Flaws,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 5773–5777.10.1073/pnas.1404402111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ali, A. and Abdulai, A. 2010: “The Adoption of Genetically Modified Cotton and Poverty Reduction in Pakistan,” Journal of Agricultural Economics 61: 175–192.Google Scholar
Altham, J. E. J. 1986: “The Legacy of Emotivism,” in Fact, Science and Morality: Essays on A. J. Ayer’s Language, Truth and Logic, Macdonald, G. and Wright, C. (eds.), 275–288. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Althusser, L. 1977: Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, B. Brewster (trans.). London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
Althusser, L. 1998: “For Marx,” in Continental Philosophy: An Anthology, McNeill, W. and Feldman, K. (eds.), 271–278. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Altman, L. 2006: “For Science’s Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap,” New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html?pagewanted=1.Google Scholar
Altman, L. and Broad, W. J. 2005: “Global Trend: More Science, More Fraud,” New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/science/global-trend-more-science-more-fraud.html.10.1016/S1361-3723(05)00150-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Association for the Advancement of Science 1994: Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
American Humanist Association 2003: “Humanist Manifesto III.” https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/manifesto3/.Google Scholar
American Humanist Association 2023: “Our Mission.” https://americanhumanist.org/about/our-mission/#.Google Scholar
Andersen, B. L., Cyranowski, J. M., and Aarestad, S. 2000: “Beyond Artificial, Sex-Linked Distinctions to Conceptualize Female Sexuality: Comment on Baumeister,” Psychological Bulletin 126: 385–389.10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.380CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersen, H. K. and Mitchell, S. D. 2023: The Pragmatist Challenge: Pragmatist Metaphysics for Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198805458.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E. 2004: “Uses of Value Judgments in Science: A General Argument, with Lessons from a Case Study of Feminist Research on Divorce,” Hypatia 19: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, K. G. 2006: “How Well Does Paternity Confidence Match Actual Paternity?,” Current Anthropology 47: 513–520.10.1086/504167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apostolou, M. 2007: “Sexual Selection under Parental Choice: The Role of Parents in the Evolution of Human Mating,” Evolution and Human Behavior 28: 403–409.10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.05.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apostolou, M. 2010: “Parental Choice: What Parents Want in a Son-in-Law and a Daughter-in-Law across 67 Pre-industrial Societies,” British Journal of Psychology 101: 695–704.10.1348/000712609X480634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babbitt, I. 1930: “Humanism: An Essay at Definition,” in Humanism and America: Essays on the Outlook of Modern Civilization, Foerster, N. (ed.), 25–51. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.Google Scholar
Bacon, F. 1960/1620: The New Organon and Related Writings, Anderson, F. H. (ed.) and J. Spedding, R. L. Ellis, and D. D. Heath (trans.). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Bacon, F. 1964/1603: “The Masculine Birth of Time,” in The Philosophy of Francis Bacon: An Essay on Its Development from 1603 to 1609, with New Translations of Fundamental Texts, Farrington, B. (ed. and trans.), 59–72. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
Bacon, F. 2000/1620: The New Organon, Jardine, L. and Silverthorne, M. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139164030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacon, F. 2008/1627: The New Atlantis. Project Gutenberg EBook #2434. www.gutenberg.org/files/2434/2434-h/2434-h.htm.Google Scholar
Badger, P. 2010: “What’s Wrong with the Enlightenment?,” Philosophy Now: A Magazine of Ideas 79 (June/July). https://philosophynow.org/issues/79/Whats_Wrong_With_The_Enlightenment.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2016: “1,500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility: Survey Sheds Light on the ‘Crisis’ Rocking Research,” Nature 533: 452–454.10.1038/533452aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, T. 2010: “Comment on Akeel Bilgrami’s Self-Knowledge and Resentment,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81: 3–782.10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00452.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balietti, S. 2016: “Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems: How to Reform the Journal Publication Process,” The New Republic. newrepublic.com/article/135921/science-suffering-peer-reviews-big-problems.Google Scholar
Barash, D. 1979: The Whisperings Within: Evolution and the Origin of Human Nature. Middlesex: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bateman, A. J. 1948: “Intra-Sexual Selection in Drosophila,” Heredity 2: 349–368.10.1038/hdy.1948.21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BBC Horizon 2006: “A War on Science (Intelligent Design).” www.dailymotion.com/video/x226cec.Google Scholar
Bedessem, B. and Ruphy, S. 2019: “The Unpredictability of Scientific Inquiry: The Unexpected Might Not Be Where You Would Expect,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 73: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bedessem, B. and Ruphy, S. 2020: “Citizen Science and Scientific Objectivity: Mapping Out Epistemic Risks and Benefits,” Perspectives on Science 28: 630–654.10.1162/posc_a_00353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begley, C. G. and Ellis, Lee M. 2012: “Drug Development: Raise Standards for Preclinical Cancer Research,” Nature 483: 531–533.10.1038/483531aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belluz, J., Plumer, B., and Resnick, B. 2016: “The 7 Biggest Problems Facing Science, according to 270 Scientists,” Vox. www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 2018: “On the Call from Outside,” The Immanent Frame. blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2010/08/18/on-the-call-from-outside/.Google Scholar
Bernhard, P. 2021: “Sie Diskutieren Sehr Gern, Aber Sehr Dilettantisch: Carnaps Vorträge am Dessauer Bauhaus,” in Logischer Empirismus, Lebensreform und die deutsche Jugendbewegung, Damböck, C., Sandner, G., and Werner, M. (eds.), 302–327. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Betz, G. 2017: “Why the Argument from Risk Doesn’t Justify Incorporating Non-Epistemic Values in Scientific Reasoning,” in Current Controversies in Value and Science, Elliott, K. C. and Steel, D. (eds.), 94–110. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, J. 2018: “Antiscience Zealotry? Values, Epistemic Risk, and the GMO Debate,” Philosophy of Science 85: 360–379.10.1086/697749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, J. 2020: “On Predicting Recidivism: Epistemic Risk, Tradeoffs, and Values in Machine Learning,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 52, 1–21.Google Scholar
Bilgrami, A. 2006: Self-Knowledge and Resentment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bilgrami, A. 2010: “Replies to Baldwin and Normore,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81: 783–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilgrami, A. 2014: Secularism, Identity, and Enchantment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bird, A. 2018: “Thomas Kuhn,” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, E. Zalta (ed.). plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/thomas-kuhn/.Google Scholar
Blackburn, S. 2013. “Disentangling Disentangling,” in Thick Concepts, Kirchin, S. (ed.), 121–135. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672349.003.0007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchard, O., Bernanke, B., and Yellen, J. 2019: “A Message from the AEA Leadership on the Professional Climate in Economics,” American Economic Association. www.aeaweb.org/news/member-announcements-mar-18-2019.Google Scholar
Blinkhorn, S. 2005: “Intelligence: A Gender Bender,” Nature 438: 31–32.10.1038/438031aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blum, P. R. 2007: “The Immortality of the Soul,” in The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Philosophy, Hankins, J. (ed.), 211–233. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenberg, H. 1983: The Legitimacy of the Modern Age, R. M. Wallace (trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Boelens, R., Guevara-Gil, A., and Panfichi, A. 2009: “Indigenous Water Rights in the Andes: Struggles over Resources and Legitimacy,” Journal of Water Law 20: 268–277.Google Scholar
Bonney, R., Hedi, L., Ballard, L., Jordan, C. R. C., McCallie, E., Phillips, T., Shirk, J. L., and Wilderman, C. C.. 2009: Public Participation in Scientific Research. Washington, DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE).Google Scholar
Boudry, M. and Pigliucci, M 2017: Science Unlimited?: The Challenges of Scientism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226498287.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boy, D. and Rouban, L. 2019: “La Science au Défi de l’Opinion Publique,” Revue Politique et Parlementaire 121: 43–58.Google Scholar
Boyle, R. 2018: “Help Young Scientists,” Scientific American 319: 62–64.10.1038/scientificamerican1018-62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brasil247 2021: “Justiça do Paraná Reafirma Responsabilidade da Syngenta Seeds por Assassinato de Agricultor do MST,” Brasil247. www.brasil247.com/meioambiente/justica-do-parana-reafirma-responsabilidade-da-syngenta-seeds-por-assassinato-de-agricultor-do-mst.Google Scholar
Bright, L. K. 2017: “Logical Empiricists on Race,” Studies in History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences 65: 9–18.10.1016/j.shpsc.2017.07.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brinkmann, S. 2013: John Dewey: Science for a Changing World. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Bronowski, J. 1968: “Science as a Humanistic Discipline,” The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 24: 33–38.10.1080/00963402.1968.11457722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooke, J. H. 1991: Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, J. R. 2008: “The Community of Science,” in The Challenge of the Social and the Pressure of Practice: Science and Values Revisited, Carrier, M., Howard, D., and Kourany, J. (eds.), 189–216. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.10.2307/j.ctt9qh7nh.13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, K. 2020: “The Big Secret in the Academy Is That Most Research Is Secret,” Academe 106, Spring. www.aaup.org/academe/issues/106-1/big-secret-academy-most-research-secret.Google Scholar
Brown, M. J. 2010: “Genuine Problems and the Significance of Science.” Contemporary Pragmatism 7: 131–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. J. 2013: “Values in Science beyond Underdetermination and Inductive Risk,” Philosophy of Science 80: 829–839.10.1086/673720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. J. 2015: “John Dewey’s Pragmatist Alternative to the Belief–Acceptance Dichotomy,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 53: 62–70.10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.05.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. J. 2020: Science and Moral Imagination: A New Ideal for Values in Science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.10.2307/j.ctv18b5d19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brush, S. G. 1991: “Women in Science and Engineering,” American Scientist 79: 404–419.Google Scholar
Bryant, R. L., and Bailey, S. 1997: Third World Political Ecology. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Buller, D. 2005: Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Burge, T. 1986: “Intellectual Norms and Foundations of Mind,” Journal of Philosophy 83: 697–720.10.2307/2026694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buscher, B. and Fletcher, R. 2020: The Conservation Revolution: Radical Ideas for Saving Nature beyond the Anthropocene. Miamisburg: Verso.Google Scholar
Bush, V. 1945: Science – The Endless Frontier: A Report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.10.21236/ADA361303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M. and Schmitt, D. P. 1993: “Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating,” Psychological Review 100: 204–232.10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cadogan, J. 2014: Curiosity-Driven Blue Sky Research: A Threatened Vital Activity? Cardiff: Learned Sociey of Wales.Google Scholar
Callan, M., and Latour, B. 2010: “Don’t Throw the Baby Out with the Bath School! A Reply to Collins and Yearley,” in Science as Practice and Culture, Pickering, A. (ed.), 343–368. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, C. 2023: “W. E. B. Du Bois and African American Humanism,” in Forging Freedom in W. E. B. Du Bois’s Twilight Years: No Deed but Memory, Sinitiere, P. L. (ed.), 131–146. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.10.2307/jj.4256583.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. 1937/1934: Logische Syntax der Sprache. Vienna: Springer. Trans.: Logical Syntax of Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 1950a: “Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4: 20–40.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 1950b: Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 1959/1932: “Überwindung der Metaphysik durch logische Analyse der Sprache,” Erkenntnis 2: 219–241. Trans.: “The Elimination of Metaphysics through Logical Analysis of Language,” in Logical Positivism, Ayer, A. J. (ed.), 60–81. New York: Free Press.10.1007/BF02028153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. 1963a: “Carnap’s Intellectual Autobiography,” in The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), 1–84. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 1963b: “Intellectual Autobiography” and “Comments and Replies,” in The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), 3–85 and 859–1016. LaSalle: Open Court.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 1967/1928: Der Logische Aufbau der Welt. Berlin: Weltkreis-Verlag. Trans.: The Logical Structure of the World. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 2013/1934: “Theoretische Fragen und Praktische Entscheidungen,” Natur und Geist 2: 257–260.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 2017: “Value Concepts (1958),” Synthese 194: 185–194.10.1007/s11229-015-0793-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. 2022/1918: “Deutschlands Niederlage. Sinnloses Schicksal oder Schuld?,” in Logischer Empirismus, Lebensreform und die deutsche Jugendbewegung, Damböck, C., Sandner, G., and Werner, M. (eds.), 317–337. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Carrier, M., Dragoman, D., Roggenhofer, J., Küppers, G., and Blanchard, P. (eds.) 2004: Knowledge and the World: Challenges beyond the Science Wars. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-08129-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N., Cat, J., Fleck, L., and Uebel, T. 1996: Otto Neurath: Philosophy between Science and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511598241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carus, A. W. 2007: Carnap and Twentieth-Century Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511487132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caspary, W. R. 2000: Dewey on Democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassirer, E. 1951/1932: The Philosophy of the Enlightenment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cat, J. 2019: “Otto Neurath,” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, E. Zalta (ed). plato.stanford.edu/entries/neurath/.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, A. 2017: “Scientific Realism,” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, E. Zalta (ed.). plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, A. 2018: “Truth and the Sciences,” in The Oxford Handbook of Truth, Glanzberg, M. (ed.), 602–624. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, A. and van Fraassen, B. C. 2018: “What Is Scientific Realism?,” Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science 9: 12–25.Google Scholar
Chang, H. 2022: Realism for Realistic People: A New Pragmatist Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108635738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, E. 2014: “Foreign Scientists Call on Stephen Harper to Restore Science Funding, Freedom,” CBC News. www.cbc.ca/news/technology/foreign-scientists-call-on-stephen-harper-to-restore-science-funding-freedom-1.2806571.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. M. 1981: “Eliminative Materialism and Propositional Attitudes,” Journal of Philosophy 78: 67–90.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. M. 1985: “The Ontological Status of Observables: In Praise of the Superempirical Virtues,” in Images of Science, Churchland, P. M. and Hooker, C. A. (eds.), 35–47. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. S. 2011: Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400838080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cokley, K. 2020: “Why Black Psychology Matters: Validating the Lived Experience of Black People,” Psychology Today. www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/black-psychology-matters/202007/why-black-psychology-matters.Google Scholar
Cole, J. R. and Zuckerman, H. 1987: “Marriage, Motherhood and Research Performance in Science,” Scientific American 256: 119–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coleman, A. R. 2020: “The Near-Certainty of a Black Depression,” Vox. www.vox.com/2020/5/6/21248330/coronavirus-black-americans-depression.Google Scholar
Collins, H. 2021: “Science as Craftwork with Integrity,” in Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science, in Ludwig, D., Koskinen, I., Mncube, Z., Poliseli, L., and Reyes-Galindo, L. (eds.), 296–307. Milton Park: Routledge.10.4324/9781003027140-32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. M., Evans, R., Durant, D., and Weinel, M. 2020: Experts and the Will of the People. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-3-030-26983-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. M. and Yearley, S. 2010: “Epistemological Chicken,” in Science as Practice and Culture, Pickering, A. (ed.), 301–326. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Colom, R., Juan-Espinosa, M., Abad, F., and García, L. F. 2000: “Negligible Sex Differences in General Intelligence,” Intelligence 28: 57–68.10.1016/S0160-2896(99)00035-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condorcet, J.-A.-N. de C. 1955/1795: Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
Cooper, D. E. 1999: “Humanism and the Scientific Worldview,” Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory 93: 1–17.10.3167/004058199782485875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, D. E. 2002: The Measure of Things: Humanism, Humility, and Mystery. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Copenhaver, B. 2007: “How to Do Magic, and Why: Philosophical Prescriptions,” in The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Philosophy, Hankins, J. (ed.), 137–169. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CCOL052184648X.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corneanu, S. 2011: Regimens of the Mind: Boyle, Locke, and the Early Modern Cultura Animi Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226116419.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottingham, J. 2009: “What Is Humane Philosophy and Why Is It at Risk?,” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 65: 233–255.10.1017/S1358246109990129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creager, A., Lunbeck, E., and Schiebinger, L. (eds.) 2001: Feminism in Twentieth-Century Science, Technology, and Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Curry, H. A. 2017: “From Working Collections to the World Germplasm Project: Agricultural Modernization and Genetic Conservation at the Rockefeller Foundation,” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 39: 5.10.1007/s40656-017-0131-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damböck, C. 2022: “Einleitung zu Rudolf Carnap, ‘Deutschlands Niederlage: Sinnloses Schcksal oder Schuld?’,” in Logischer Empirismus, Lebensreform und die deutsche Jugendbewegung, Damböck, C., Sandner, G., and Werner, M. (eds.), 317–337. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-84887-3_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damböck, C., Sandner, G., and Werner, M. (eds.) 2022: Logischer Empirismus, Lebensreform und die deutsche Jugendbewegung. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-84887-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, P. 1995: An Inquiry into Well-Being and Destitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0198288352.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. 1978: “What Metaphors Mean,” Critical Inquiry 5: 31–47.10.1086/447971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, R. and Gurven, M. 2022: “The Importance of Elders: Extending Hamilton’s Force of Selection to Include Intergenerational Transfers,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119: 1–12.10.1073/pnas.2200073119CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Kluiver, H., Buizer‐Voskamp, J. E., Dolan, C. V., and Boomsma, D. I. 2017: “Paternal Age and Psychiatric Disorders: A Review,” American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics 174: 202–213.10.1002/ajmg.b.32508CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Melo-Martin, I. and Intemann, K. 2018: The Fight against Doubt: How to Bridge the Gap between Scientists and the Public. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190869229.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Regt, H. W. 2017: Understanding Scientific Understanding. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190652913.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Ridder, J. 2018: “Kinds of Knowledge, Limits of Science,” in Scientism: Prospects and Problems, de Ridder, J., Peels, R., and van Woudenberg, R. (eds.), 190–219. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190462758.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Ridder, J., Peels, R., and van Woudenberg, R. (eds.) 2018: Scientism: Prospects and Problems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190462758.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Waal, F. B. M. 1990: “Sociosexual Behavior Used for Tension Regulation in All Age and Sex Combinations among Bonobos,” in Pedophilia, Feierman, J. R. (ed.), 378–393. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4613-9682-6_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deagan, M. J. 1988a: “W. E. B. Du Bois and the Women of Hull-House, 1895–1899,” American Sociologist 19: 301–311.10.1007/BF02691827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deagan, M. J. 1988b: Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892–1918. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. 1998/1677: The World and Other Writings, Gaukroger, S. (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511605727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. 1915: “The Logic of Judgments of Practice,” The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 12: 505–523.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 1985/1931: “Science and Society,” in The Later Works of John Dewey, Volume 6, 1925–1953: 1931–1932, Essays, Reviews, Miscellany, Boydston, J. A. (ed.), 53–63. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 1987/1934: Art as Experience, in The Later Works of John Dewey, Volume 10, 1925–1953: 1934, Art as Experience, Boydston, J. (ed.), 1–368. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 1988/1925: The Later Works of John Dewey, Volume 1, 1925–1953: 1925, Experience and Nature, Boydston, J. A. (ed.). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 1989/1934: A Common Faith, in The Later Works of John Dewey, Volume 9, 1925–1953: 1933–1934, Essays, Reviews, Miscellany, and A Common Faith, Boydston, J. (ed.), 1–58. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 2021/1930: “What Humanism Means to Me,” in America’s Public Philosopher: Essays on Social Justice, Economics, Education, and the Future of Democracy, Webber, E. T. (ed.), 314–317. New York: Columbia University Press.10.7312/dewe19894-048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewulf, F. 2021: “The Institutional Stabilization of Philosophy of Science and Its Withdrawal from Social Concerns after the Second World War,” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 29: 935–953.10.1080/09608788.2020.1848794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotson, K. 2011: “Tracking Epistemic Violence, Tracking Practices of Silencing,” Hypatia, 26: 236–257.10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01177.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. 2009: Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.10.2307/j.ctt6wrc78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. 2013: “The Value of Cognitive Values,” Philosophy of Science 80: 796–806.10.1086/673716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. 2014: “Pure Science and the Problem of Progress,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 46: 55–63.10.1016/j.shpsa.2014.02.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douglas, H. 2017. “Why Inductive Risk Requires Values in Science,” in Current Controversies in Value and Science, Elliott, K. C. and Steel, D. (eds.), 81–93. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dumit, J. 2012: Drugs for Life: How Pharmaceutical Companies Define Our Health. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. 2003: “The Social Brain: Mind, Language, and Society in Evolutionary Perspective,” Annual Review of Anthropology 32: 163–181.10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupré, J. 1993: The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dupré, J. 2001: Human Nature and the Limits of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0199248060.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupré, J. 2002: “The Lure of the Simplistic,” Philosophy of Science 69: S284–S293.10.1086/341852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupré, J. 2003: Darwin’s Legacy: What Evolution Means Today. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dupré, J. and Barnes, B. 2008: Genomes and What to Make of Them. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dutilh, N. C. 2020: “Carnapian Explication and Ameliorative Analysis: A Comparison,” Synthese 197: 1011–1034.10.1007/s11229-018-1732-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutton, D. 2009: The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure and Human Evolution. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Eco, U. 1999: Kant and the Platypus: Essays on Language and Cognition, A. McEwan (trans.). London: Seeker & C. Warburg.Google Scholar
Eddington, A. 1928: The Nature of the Physical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ehrenfeld, D. 1981/1978: The Arrogance of Humanism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Einon, D. 1998: “How Many Children Can One Man Have?,” Evolution and Human Behavior 19: 413–426.10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00026-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliot, L. 2020: “Sex/Gender Differences in the Brain and Their Relationship to Behavior,” in The Cambridge Handbook of the International Psychology of Women, Cheung, F. M. and Halpern, D. F. (eds.), 63–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108561716.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. C. 2017: A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190260804.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. C. and Steel, D. (eds.) 2017: Current Controversies in Value and Science. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9781315639420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, J. 1996: “Rationality and Emotions,” Economic Journal 106: 1386–1397.10.2307/2235530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engber, D. 2016: “Cancer Research Is Broken: There’s a Replication Crisis in Biomedicine – and No One Even Knows How Deep It Runs,” Slate. slate.com/technology/2016/04/biomedicine-facing-a-worse-replication-crisis-than-the-one-plaguing-psychology.html.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. 1995: “The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials,” Science, Technology and Human Values 20: 408–437.10.1177/016224399502000402CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Escobar, A. 2018: Designs for the Pluriverse. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.10.1215/9780822371816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estioko-Griffin, A. and Griffin, P. B. 1981: “Woman the Hunter, the Agta,” in Woman the Gatherer, Dahlberg, F. (ed.), 121–152. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Etzkowitz, H. 2003: “Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relation,” Social Science Information 42: 293–337.10.1177/05390184030423002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. 2018: “The Unwelcome Revival of ‘Race Science’,” The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/02/the-unwelcome-revival-of-race-science.Google Scholar
Fairhead, J., Leach, M., and Scoones, I. 2012: “Green Grabbing: A New Appropriation of Nature?,” Journal of Peasant Studies, 39: 237–261.10.1080/03066150.2012.671770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, D. 2004: “Prelinguistic Evolution in Early Hominins: Whence Motherese?,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27: 491–503.Google ScholarPubMed
Farr, J. 1991: “Science: Realism, History, Critique,” in The Cambridge Companion to Marx, Carver, T. (ed.), 106–123. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, A. 2012: Sex/Gender: Biology in a Social World. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203127971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, A. 2020: Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality, updated edition. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Feigl, H. 1949: “Naturalism and Humanism,” American Quarterly 1: 135–148.10.2307/3031261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feigl, H. 1981/1949: Inquiries and Provocations: Selected Writings, 1927–1974, Cohen, R. S. (ed.). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Fernandez Pinto, M. 2018: “Democratizing Strategies for Industry-Funded Medical Research: A Cautionary Tale,” Philosophy of Science 85: 882–894.10.1086/699720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fesmire, S. A. 1995: “Dramatic Rehearsal and the Moral Artist: A Deweyan Theory of Moral Understanding,” Transactions of the Charles Sanders Peirce Society 31: 568–597.Google Scholar
Fesmire, S. A. 2003: John Dewey and Moral Imagination: Pragmatism in Ethics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.10.2979/2139.0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. 1975: “How to Defend Society against Science,” Radical Philosophy 11: 3–8.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. 1999: Conquest of Abundance: A Tale of Abstraction versus the Richness of Being, Terpstra, B. (ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Váquez, G., Brumach, B. H., Schneider, S. M. R., Sefcek, J. A., Tal, I. R., Hill, D., Wenner, C. J., and Jacobs, W. J. 2006: “Consilience and Life History Theory: From Genes to Brain to Reproductive Strategy,” Developmental Review 26: 243–275.10.1016/j.dr.2006.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. 1998: “The Viewpoint of No-one in Particular,” Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association 72: 9–20.10.2307/3130879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, A. 1929: “On the Antibacterial Action of Cultures of a Penicillium, with Special Reference to Their Use in the Isolation of B. Influenza,” British Journal of Experimental Pathology 10: 226–236.Google Scholar
Flynn, T. 2005: “Foucault’s Mapping of History,” in The Cambridge Companion to Foucault, Gutting, G. (ed.), 29–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CCOL0521840821.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foerster, N. (ed.) 1930: Humanism and America: Essays on the Outlook of Modern Civilization. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.Google Scholar
Folwell, M., Sanders, K., and Crowe-Riddell, J. 2022: “The Squamate Clitoris: A Review and Directions for Future Research,” Integrative and Comparative Biology 62: 559–568.10.1093/icb/icac056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, T. N., Reber, S., and Reeves, R. V. 2020: “Race Gaps in COVID-19 Deaths Are Even Bigger than They Appear,” Brookings Institution. www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/06/16/race-gaps-in-covid-19-deaths-are-even-bigger-than-they-appear/.Google Scholar
Forum for Food Sovereignty 2007: “Declaration of Nyéléni.” www2.world-governance.org/IMG/pdf_0072_Declaration_of_Nyeleni_-_ENG-2.pdf.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1970: The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1977: Counter-Practice, Language, Memory: Selected Interviews and Essays, Bouchard, D. F. (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1978: The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction, A. Sheridan (trans.). New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1981: “Is It Useless to Revolt?,” J. Bernauer (trans.), Philosophy and Social Criticism 8: 1–9.10.1177/019145378100800101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, D. and Opoku-Agyeman, A. G. 2020: “Economists’ Silence on Racism Is 100 Years in the Making,” Newsweek. www.newsweek.com/economists-silence-racism-100-years-making-opinion-1509790.Google Scholar
Frank, P. 1949/1917: “Die Bedeutung der Physikalischen Erkenntnistheorie Ernst Machs für das Geisteslebens Unserer Zeit,” Die Naturwissenschaften 5: 65–80. Trans.: “The Importance for Our Times of Ernst Mach’s Philosophy of Science,” in Modern Science and Its Philosophy, P. Frank (ed.), 61–78. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.1007/BF02448154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, P. 1957: Philosophy of Science: The Link between Science and Philosophy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.10.1037/11137-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, P. 2021: The Humanistic Background of Science, Reisch, G. A. and Tuboly, A. T. (eds.), Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, N. 2009: Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, N. and Honneth, A. 2003: Redistribution or Recognition? A Political–Philosophical Exchange. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. and Creath, R. (eds.) 2007: The Cambridge Companion to Carnap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CCOL9780521840156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galison, P. 2008: “Removing Knowledge: The Logic of Modern Censorship,” in Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance, Proctor, R. and Schiebinger, L. (eds.), 37–54. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Galison, P. L. and Stump, D. J. (eds.) 1996: The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Garrison, J. 1997: Dewey and Eros: Wisdom and Desire in the Art of Teaching. Charlotte: Information Age.Google Scholar
Gaukroger, S. 2006: The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping of Modernity 1210–1685. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199296446.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaukroger, S. 2010: The Collapse of Mechanism and the Rise of Sensibility: Science and the Shaping of Modernity 1680–1760. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199594931.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaukroger, S. 2016: The Natural and the Human: Science and the Shaping of Modernity 1739–1841. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198757634.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaukroger, S. 2020: Civilization and the Culture of Science: Science and the Shaping of Modernity 1795–1935. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198849070.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentilini, U. and Webb, P. 2008: “How Are We Doing on Poverty and Hunger Reduction? A New Measure of Country Performance,” Food Policy 33: 521–532.10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.04.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, M. 1999: “Science’s New Social Contract with Society,” Nature 402 (Supp.): C81–C84.Google ScholarPubMed
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., and Trow, M. 1994: The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gignac, G. E. 2015: “Raven’s Is Not a Pure Measure of General Intelligence: Implications for g Factor Theory and the Brief Measurement of g,” Intelligence 52: 71–79.10.1016/j.intell.2015.07.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gläser, J. and Velarde, K. 2018: “Changing Funding Arrangements and the Production of Scientific Knowledge: Introduction to the Special Issue,” Minerva 56: 1–10.10.1007/s11024-018-9344-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glover, D. 2010: “Is Bt Cotton a Pro-Poor Technology? A Review and Critique of the Empirical Record,” Journal of Agrarian Change 10: 482–509.10.1111/j.1471-0366.2010.00283.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godlee, F. 2016: “At Your Next Conference Ask Where the Patients Are,” British Medical Journal 354: i5123.Google Scholar
Goldblatt, P. 2006: “How John Dewey’s Theories Underpin Art and Art Education,” Education and Culture 22: 17–34.Google Scholar
Goldie, P. 2012: The Mess Inside: Narrative, Emotion, and the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230730.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. 2010: “Huckleberry Finn and Moral Motivation,” Philosophy and Literature 34: 1–16.10.1353/phl.0.0075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1999: Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
Gould, E. and Wilson, V. 2020: “Black Workers Face Two of the Most Lethal Preexisting Conditions for Coronavirus: Racism and Economic Inequality,” Economic Policy Institute. www.epi.org/publication/black-workers-covid/.Google Scholar
Grafton, A. 1990: “Humanism, Magic and Science,” in The Impact of Humanism on Western Europe, Goodman, A. and MacKay, A. (eds.), 99–117. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Grafton, A. 1996: “The New Science and Traditions of Humanism,” in The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism, Kraye, J. (ed.), 203–223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CCOL0521430380.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, J. 1995: Enlightenment’s Wake: Politics and Culture at the Close of the Modern Age. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203450635_chapter_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grinnell, F. 2009: Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion Meet Objectivity and Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guston, D. H. 2000a: “Retiring the Social Contract for Science,” Issues in Science and Technology 16: 32–36.Google Scholar
Guston, D. H. 2000b: Between Politics and Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511571480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagen, E. H. 1999: “The Functions of Postpartum Depression,” Evolution and Human Behavior 20: 325–359.10.1016/S1090-5138(99)00016-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., and Gernsbacher, M. A. 2007: “The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 8: 1–51.10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halpern, D. F. and Wai, J. 2020: “Sex Differences in Intelligence,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, Sternberg, R. (ed.), 317–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Halpern, D. F. and LaMay, M. L. 2000: “The Smarter Sex: A Critical Review of Sex Differences in Intelligence,” Educational Psychology Review 12: 229–246.10.1023/A:1009027516424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamington, M. 2010: “Care Ethics, John Dewey’s ‘Dramatic Rehearsal,’ and Moral Education,” Philosophy of Education 66: 121–128.10.47925/2010.121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankins, J. 2007: “Humanism and Modern Political Thought,” in The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Philosophy, Hankins, J. (ed.), 118–141. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CCOL052184648XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, D. J. 1988: “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective,” Feminist Studies 14: 575–599.10.2307/3178066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, S. 1986: The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, S. 1991: Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, S. 2010: The Postcolonial Science and Technology Studies Reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Hardy, B. and Logan, T. D. 2020: “Racial Economic Inequality amid the COVID-19 Crisis,” Brookings Institution. www.brookings.edu/research/racial-economic-inequality-amid-the-covid-19-crisis/.Google Scholar
Harris, C. 2021: “‘Science Must Fall’ and the Call for Decolonization in South Africa,” in Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science, Ludwig, D., Koskinen, I., Mncube, Z., Poliseli, L., and Reyes-Galindo, L. (eds.), 106–114. Milton Park: Routledge.10.4324/9781003027140-11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, C. R. 2004: “The Evolution of Jealousy: Did Men and Women, Facing Different Selective Pressures, Evolve Different ‘Brands’ of Jealousy? Recent Evidence Suggests Not,” American Scientist 92: 62–71.10.1511/2004.1.62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, P. 2007: The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hartle, A. 2005: “Montaigne and Scepticism,” in The Cambridge Companion to Montaigne, Langer, U. (ed.), 183–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harvey, L. 2020: “Research Fraud: A Long-term Problem Exacerbated by the Clamour for Research Grants,” Quality in Higher Education 26: 243–261.10.1080/13538322.2020.1820126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastings, C. 2017: “Are Replication Studies Unwelcome?,” Frontiers. blog.frontiersin.org/2017/05/01/are-replication-studies-unwelcome/.Google Scholar
Havstad, J. C. 2021: “Sensational Science, Archaic Hominin Genetics, and Amplified Inductive Risk,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 52: 295–320.10.1017/can.2021.15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J. F., Bluton Jones, N. G., Alvarez, H., and Charnov, E. L. 1998: “Grandmothering, Menopause, and the Evolution of Human Life Histories,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95: 1336–1339.10.1073/pnas.95.3.1336CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haynes, S. 2020: “As Protesters Shine a Spotlight on Racial Injustice in America, the Reckoning Is Going Global,” Time. time.com/5851879/racial-injustice-prsts-europe/.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. 1962: Being and Time, J. Macquarrie and E. S. Robinson (trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. 1977: The Question concerning Technology (and Other Essays), W. Lovitt (trans.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. 1982: Basic Questions of Phenomenology, A. Hofstadter (trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. 1993: “Letter on Humanism,” in Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger, Krell, D. F (ed.), 189–242. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Helm, B. 2010: Love, Friendship, and the Self: Intimacy, Identification, and the Social Nature of Persons. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199567898.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1950: “Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning,” Revue Internationale De Philosophie 41: 41–63.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1951: “The Concept of Cognitive Significance: A Reconsideration,” Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 80: 61–77.10.2307/20023635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensel, P. 1930/1921: “Neuhumanismus,” in Kleine Schriften und Vorträge, 272–277. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.Google Scholar
Hickman, L. A. 1990: John Dewey’s Pragmatic Technology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hicks, D. J. 2015: “Epistemological Depth in a GM Crops Controversy,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 50: 1–12.10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinton, G. E., Osindero, S., and Teh, Y. W. 2006: “A Fast Learning Algorithm for Deep Belief Nets,” Neural Computation 18: 1527–1554.Google ScholarPubMed
Hoeveler, J. D. 1977: The New Humanism: A Critique of Modern America, 1900–1940. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Hofweber, T. 2005: “Number Determiners, Numbers, and Arithmetic,” Philosophical Review 114: 179–225.10.1215/00318108-114-2-179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofweber, T. 2016: Ontology and the Ambitions of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198769835.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, B. and Wilholt, T. 2022: “The New Demarcation Problem,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 91: 211–220.10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.11.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hope, C. and McGrath, E. 1996: “Artists and Humanists,” in The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism, Kraye, J. (ed.), 161–188. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoquet, T. 2020: “Bateman (1948): Rise and Fall of a Paradigm?,” Animal Behaviour 164: 223–231.10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.12.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horkheimer, M. and Adorno, T. 1994/1947: The Dialectics of Enlightenment, J. Cumming (trans.). New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Howard, D. 2003: “Two Left Turns Make a Right: On the Curious Political Career of North American Philosophy of Science at Mid-Century,” in Logical Empiricism in North America, Hardcastle, G. and Richardson, A. (eds.), 25–93. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Howard, D. 2009. “Better Red than Dead: Putting an End to the Social Irrelevance of Postwar Philosophy of Science,” Science & Education 18: 199–220.10.1007/s11191-007-9117-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, D. 2019. “Otto Neurath: The Philosopher in the Cave,” in Neurath Reconsidered: New Sources and Perspectives, Cat, J. and Tuboly, A. (eds.), 45–66. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-02128-3_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrdy, S. 1999: Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S. 2006: “Empathy, Polyandry, and the Myth of the Coy Female,” in Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology, 3rd edition, Sober, E. (ed.), 131–159. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S. 2009: Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding. Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Humanists International 2022: “The Amsterdam Declaration.” humanists.international/what-is-humanism/the-amsterdam-declaration/.Google Scholar
Humanists International 2023: “What Is Humanism?” humanists.international/what-is-humanism/.Google Scholar
Humphrey, N. 1999: “Why Human Grandmothers May Need Large Brains,” Psycoloquy 10: 1–3.Google Scholar
Husserl, E. 1970: The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Philosophy, D. Carr (trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. 1994: “Foucault and Habermas on the Subject of Reason,” in The Cambridge Companion to Foucault, Gutting, G. (ed.), 215–261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CCOL9780521403320.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, K. 2010: “25 Years of Feminist Empiricism and Standpoint Theory: Where Are We Now?,” Hypatia 25: 778–796.10.1111/j.1527-2001.2010.01138.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, K. 2017: “Feminism, Values, and the Bias Paradox: Why Value Management Is Not Sufficient,” in Current Controversies in Value and Science, Elliott, K. C. and Steel, D. (eds.), 130–144. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9781315639420-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ioannidis, J. 2018: “Rethink Funding,” Scientific American 319: 52–55.10.1038/scientificamerican1018-52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ISAAA 2019: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2019 (ISAAA Brief No. 55). Ithaca, NY: ISAAA.Google Scholar
Jacob, J. R. 1978: Boyle and the English Revolution: A Study in Social and Intellectual Change. New York: Burt Franklin.Google Scholar
James, W. 1902: The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. New York: Longman.10.1037/10004-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janack, M. 2002: “Dilemmas of Objectivity,” Social Epistemology 16: 267–281.10.1080/0269172022000025624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jewett, A. 2020: Science Under Fire: Challenges to Scientific Authority in Modern America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, L. B. 1965: “To Fulfill These Rights: Commencement Address at Howard University.” teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/commencement-address-at-howard-university-to-fulfill-these-rights/.Google Scholar
Johnston, J. S. 2002: “John Dewey and the Role of the Scientific Method in Aesthetic Experience,” Studies in Philosophy and Education 21: 1–15.10.1023/A:1014457300559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahane, D. and Lopston, K. 2013: “Stakeholder and Citizen Roles in Public Deliberation,” Journal of Public Deliberation 9: 1–37.Google Scholar
Kang, S. T. 1973: Sumerian Economic Texts from the Umma Archive. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1996/1784: “An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?,” in What Is Enlightenment: Eighteenth-Century Answers and Twentieth-Century Questions, Schmidt, J. (ed.), 53–58. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1929/1781/1787: Critique of Pure Reason, K. Smith (trans.). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1991: Political Writings. Reiss, H. S. (ed.), H. B. Nisbet (trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, H., Hill, K., Lancaster, J., and Hurtado, A. M. 2000: “A Theory of Human Life History Evolution: Diet, Intelligence, and Longevity,” Evolutionary Anthropology 9: 149–186.Google Scholar
Kellert, S. H., Longino, H. E., and Waters, C. K. (eds.) 2006: Scientific Pluralism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, B. and Tyson, A. 2023: “Americans’ Trust in Scientists, Positive Views of Science Continue to Decline,” Pew Research Center. www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/11/14/americans-trust-in-scientists-positive-views-of-science-continue-to-decline/.Google Scholar
Kidd, I. J. 2020: “Humility, Contingency, and Pluralism in the Sciences,” in The Routledge Handbook on the Philosophy of Humility, Alfano, M., Lynch, M., and Tanesini, A. (eds.), 346–358. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781351107532-36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidd, I. J. 2021: “Creativity in Science and the ‘Anthropological Turn’ in Virtue Theory,” European Journal of the Philosophy of Science 11: 1–16.10.1007/s13194-020-00334-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidder, L., Fagan, M., and Cohn, E. 1981: “Giving and Receiving: Social Justice in Close Relationships,” in The Justice Motive in Social Behavior, Lerner, M. J. and Lerner, S. (eds.), 235–259. New York: Plenum.10.1007/978-1-4899-0429-4_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1983: Believing Where We Cannot Prove. Abusing Science: The Case against Creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 2001: Science, Truth and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0195145836.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. 2011: Science in a Democratic Society. Amherst: Prometheus Books.10.1163/9789401207355_003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. 2015: “Pragmatism and Progress,” Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 51: 475–494.10.2979/trancharpeirsoc.51.4.06CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. 2020: “Can We Sustain Democracy and the Planet Too?,” in Science and the Production of Ignorance: When the Quest for Knowledge Is Thwarted, Kourany, J. A. and Carrier, M. (eds.), 89–120. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kleis, R., Louwerens, T., and Sikkema, A. 2019: “Fresco’s Syngenta Board Position Controversial,” Resource. resource.wur.nl/en/show/Frescos-Syngenta-board-position-controversial.html.Google Scholar
Kofman, A. 2018: “Bruno Latour, the Post-Truth Philosopher, Mounts a Defense of Science,” New York Times Magazine. www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html.Google Scholar
Kolenda, K. 1995: “Humanism,” in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Audi, R. (ed.), 340–341. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Korte, A. 2019: “U.S. Scientific Community Needs a Mission Reboot to Focus on Public Good,” American Association for the Advancement of Science. www.aaas.org/news/us-scientific-community-needs-mission-reboot-focus-public-good.Google Scholar
Kourany, J. A. 2010: Philosophy of Science after Feminism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732623.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kourany, J. A. 2016: “Should Some Knowledge Be Forbidden? The Case of Cognitive Differences Research,” Philosophy of Science 83: 779–790.10.1086/687863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kourany, J. A. 2020: “Might Scientific Ignorance Be Virtuous? The Case of Cognitive Differences Research,” in Science and the Production of Ignorance: When the Quest for Knowledge Is Thwarted, Kourany, J. A. and Carrier, M. (eds.), 123–143. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/12146.003.0018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kranthi, K. R. and Stone, G. D. 2020: “Long-Term Impacts of Bt Cotton in India,” Nature Plants 6: 188–196.10.1038/s41477-020-0615-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraye, J. 1996: “Philologists and Philosophers,” in The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism, Kraye, J. (ed.), 142–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CCOL0521430380.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krimsky, S. 2003: Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research? New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Krishna, V. V. 2014: “Changing Social Relations between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges,” Science, Technology, and Society 19: 133–159.10.1177/0971721814529876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishtel, P. and Malpani, R. 2021: “Suspend Intellectual Property Rights for Covid-19 Vaccines,” British Medical Journal 373: n1344.10.1136/bmj.n1344CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristeller, P. O. 1990: “Humanism,” in The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy, Schmitt, C. B., Kraye, J., Kessler, E., and Skinner, Q. (eds.), 111–138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1962: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1970: “Notes on Lakatos,” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970: 137–146.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1977: “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice,” in The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, 320–339. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226217239.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1978: Black Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894–1912. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 2012: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226458144.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwa, C. 2011: Styles of Knowing: A New History of Science from Ancient Times to the Present, D. McKay (trans.). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.10.2307/j.ctt5hjswtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Via Campesina 2020: “Annual Report.” viacampesina.org/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/05/EN_Annual_Report_2020_rev.pdf.Google Scholar
Lacey, A. 1995: “Humanism,” in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Honderich, T. (ed.), 375–376. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lacey, H. 2015: “Food and Agricultural Systems for the Future: Science, Emancipation and Human Flourishing,” Journal of Critical Realism 14: 272–286.10.1179/1572513815Y.0000000002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacey, H. 2017: “Distinguishing between Cognitive and Social Values,” in Current Controversies in Value and Science, Elliott, K. C. and Steel, D. (eds.), 15–30. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9781315639420-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladyman, J. 2018: “Scientism with a Humane Face,” in Scientism: Prospects and Problems, de Ridder, J., Peels, R., and van Woudenberg, R. (eds.), 106–126. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. 1970: “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), 91–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139171434.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. 1993: We Have Never Been Modern. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. 2004a: Politics of Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674039964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. 2004b: “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern,” Critical Inquiry 30: 225–248.10.1086/421123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. 2018: Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. 1984: Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
LaVine, M. 2020: Race, Gender and the History of Early Analytic Philosophy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.10.5040/9781978724266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, S. 2011: Humanism: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/actrade/9780199553648.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, R. B. and DeVore, I. (eds.) 1968: Man the Hunter. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Lerner, M. J. 1980: The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Levya, X. and Speed, S. 2008: “Hacia la Investigación Descolonizada: Nuestra Experiencia de Co-labor,” in Gobernar (en) la Diversidad: Experiencias Indígenas desde América Latina, Leyva, X., Burguete, A., and Speed, S. (eds.), 65–108. Mexico: CIESAS.Google Scholar
Lewis, W. 2018: “Louis Althusser,” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zalta, E. (ed.). plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/althusser/.Google Scholar
Lipton, P. 2007/2017: “Science and Religion: The Immersion Solution,” in Realism and Religion: Philosophical and Theological Perspectives, Moore, A. and Scott, M. (eds.), 31–46. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lloyd, E. 2006: The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674040304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, P. O. 2016: “Humanism and Science,” in Renaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, Volume 3: Humanism and the Disciplines, Rabil, A., Jr. (ed.), 486–512. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Longino, H. 1990: Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691209753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. 2006: “Philosophy of Science after the Social Turn,” in Cambridge and Vienna: Frank P. Ramsey and the Vienna Circle, Galavotti, M. C. (ed.), 167–177. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/1-4020-4101-2_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. 2016: Underdetermination: A Dirty Little Secret? STS Occasional Papers 4. London: UCL Department of Science and Technology Studies.Google Scholar
Low, B. S., Alexander, R. D., and Noonan, K. M. 1987: “Human Hips, Breasts and Buttocks: Is Fat Deceptive?,” Ethology and Sociobiology 8: 249–257.10.1016/0162-3095(87)90027-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, D. 2016: “Ontological Choices and the Value-Free Ideal,” Erkenntnis 81: 1253–1272.Google Scholar
Ludwig, D. and Boogaard, B. 2021: “Making Transdisciplinarity Work,” in The Politics of Knowledge in Inclusive Development and Innovation, Ludwig, D., Boogaard, B., Macnaghten, P., and Leeuwis, C. 2022 (eds.), 19–33. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781003112525-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, D., Boogaard, B., Macnaghten, P., and Leeuwis, C. (eds.) 2022: The Politics of Knowledge in Inclusive Development and Innovation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Luna, J. K. and Dowd-Uribe, B. 2020: “Knowledge Politics and the Bt Cotton Success Narrative in Burkina Faso,” World Development 136: 105–127.Google Scholar
Lynn, R. 1994: “Sex Differences in Intelligence and Brain Size: A Paradox Resolved,” Personality and Individual Differences 17: 257–271.10.1016/0191-8869(94)90030-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynn, R. 2017: “Sex Differences in Intelligence: The Developmental Theory,” Mankind Quarterly 58: 9–42.10.46469/mq.2017.58.1.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynn, R. and Irwing, P. 2004: “Sex Differences on the Progressive Matrices: A Meta-Analysis,” Intelligence 32: 481–498.10.1016/j.intell.2004.06.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, A. 1988: Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Magnus, P. D. 2013: “What Scientists Know Is Not a Function of What Scientists Know,” Philosophy of Science 80: 840–849.10.1086/673718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiman, T. H. 1960: “Optical and Microwave-Optical Experiments in Ruby,” Physical Review Letters 4: 564–566.10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March for Science 2017: “The Science behind the March for Science Crowd Estimates.” medium.com/marchforscience-blog/the-science-behind-the-march-for-science-crowd-estimates-f337adf2d665.Google Scholar
Marx, K. 1986: Karl Marx: A Reader, Elster, J. (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marx, K. 1994: Early Political Writing, O’Malley, J. (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139168007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, K. 2009: Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 and The Communist Manifesto, M. Mulligan (trans.). New York: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Matthews, F. H. 1977: Quest for an American Sociology: Robert E. Park and the Chicago School. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
McAleer, G. J. and Rosenthal-Pubul, A. S. 2023: The Wisdom of Our Ancestors: Conservative Humanism and the Western Tradition. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.10.2307/jj.21995520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, C. 1999: “Dewey’s Ethics: Philosophy or Science?,” Educational Theory 49: 339–359.10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00339.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, K. A. 2005: “John Dewey: Aesthetic Experience and Artful Conduct,” Education and Culture 21: 42–62.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. 1979: “Virtue and Reason,” Monist 62: 331–350.10.5840/monist197962319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, J. 1985: “Values and Secondary Qualities,” in Morality and Objectivity, Honderich, T. (ed.), 110–129. Boston, MA: Routledge.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. 2006: “Reply to Bilgrami,” in McDowell and His Critics, Macdonald, C. and Macdonald, G. (eds.), 66–72. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
McElwain, G. 2019: Mary Midgley: An Introduction. London: Bloomsbury.10.5040/9781350047600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrew, W. C. 1981: “The Female Chimpanzee as a Human Evolutionary Prototype,” in Woman the Gatherer, Dahlberg, F. (ed.), 35–74. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Melogno, P., Miguel, H., and Giri, L. (eds.) 2023: Perspectives on Kuhn: Contemporary Approaches to the Philosophy of Thomas Kuhn. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962: Phenomenology of Perception, C. Morris (trans.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Michaels, D. 2008: Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michaels, D. 2020: The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Midgley, M. 1994: The Ethical Primate: Humans, Freedom, and Morality. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203287507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, B. 2014: “Science, Values, and Pragmatic Encroachment on Knowledge,” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 4: 253–270.10.1007/s13194-014-0087-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millstein, R. L. 2015: “GMOs? Not So Fast,” Common Reader: A Journal of the Essay 1: 33–46.Google Scholar
Mirandolla, G. P. della 2012/1486: Oration on the Dignity of Man: A New Translation and Commentary, Borghesi, F., Papio, M., and Riva, M. (eds.) (trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mirowski, P. and Sent, E. 2002: Science Bought and Sold: Essays in the Economics of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Misak, C. J. 2004: Truth and the End of Inquiry: A Peircean Account of Truth. Oxford: Clarendon.10.1093/0199270597.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishima, K. 2020: “The ‘Disenchantment of the World’ or Why We Can No Longer Use the Formula as Max Weber Might Have Intended,” in The Oxford Handbook of Max Weber, Hanke, E., Scaff, L., and Whimster, S. (eds.), 352–373. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mizrahi, M. 2022: For and Against Scientism: Science, Methodology, and the Future of Philosophy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Monfasani, J. 1998: “Humanism, Renaissance,” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Craig, E. (ed.), 533–541. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Montaigne, M. de 1991/1580–1595: The Complete Essays, M. A. Screech (trans.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
More, L. T. 1915: The Limitations of Science. New York: Henry Holt.10.5962/bhl.title.19106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
More, L. T. 1930: “The Pretensions of Science,” in Humanism and America: Essays on the Outlook of Modern Civilization, Foerster, N. (ed.), 2–24. New York: Farrar/Rinehart.Google Scholar
More, P. E. 1928. Demon of the Absolute: Shelborne Essays, Volume 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, M. 2016: Pragmatic Humanism: On the Nature and Value of Sociological Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Motta, R. 2014: “Social Disputes over GMOs: An Overview,” Sociology Compass 8: 1360–1376.10.1111/soc4.12229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., du Sert, N. P., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E., Ware, J. J., and Ioannidis, J. P. A. 2017: “A Manifesto for Reproducible Science,” Nature Human Behaviour 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, C. 2005b: “Where Are the Female Einsteins?,” American Enterprise Institute. www.aei.org/articles/where-are-the-female-einsteins.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. 1979: “Subjective and Objective,” in Mortal Questions, Nagel, T., 196–213. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
National Science Board 2020: “Science and Technology: Public Attitudes, Knowledge, and Interest.” ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20207/.Google Scholar
Nature 2017: “Researchers Should Reach beyond the Science Bubble,” Nature 542: 391.10.1038/542391aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nauert, C. G. 1995: Humanism and the Culture of Renaissance Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nestle, M. 2018: Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Neurath, O. 1973/1912: “Das Problem des Lustmaximums,” Jahrbuch der Philosophischen Gesellschaft an der Universität Wien 1912. Trans.: “The Problem of the Pleasure Maximum,” in Neurath, O., Empiricism and Sociology, Neurath, M. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), 113–122. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-010-2525-6_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neurath, O. 1973/1928: Lebensgestaltung und Klassenkampf. Berlin: Laub. Excerpts. Trans.: “Personal Life and Class Struggle,” in Neurath, O., Empiricism and Sociology, Neurath, M. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), 249–298. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Neurath, O. 1973/1931: Empirische Soziologie: Der wissenschaftliche Gehat der Geschichte undf Nationalökonomie. Vienna: Springer. Trans.: “Empirical Sociology,” in Neurath, O., Empiricism and Sociology, Neurath, M. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), 391–421. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Neurath, O. 1983/1913: “Die Verirrten des Cartesius und das Auxiliarmotiv (Zur Psychologie des Entschlusses),” Jahrbuch der Philosophischen Gesellschaft an der Universität zu Wien 1913, 45–59. Trans.: “The Lost Wanderers and the Auxiliary Motive (On the Psychology of Decision),” in Neurath, O., Philosophical Papers 1913–1946, Cohen, R. S. and Neurath, M. (eds.), 1–12. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-6995-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neurath, O. 1983/1932a: “Soziologie im Physikalismus,” Erkenntnis 2: 393–431. Trans.: “Sociology in the Framework of Physicalism,” in Neurath, O., Philosophical Papers 1913–1946, Cohen, R. S. and Neurath, M. (eds.), 58–97. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/BF02028171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neurath, O. 1983/1932b: “Protokollsätze,” Erkenntnis 3: 204–214. Trans.: “Protocol Statements,” in Neurath, O., Philosophical Papers 1913–1946, Cohen, R. S. and Neurath, M. (eds.), 91–99. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/BF01886420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neurath, O. 1983/1934: “Radikaler Physikalismus und ‘wirkliche Welt’,” Erkenntnis 4: 346–362. Trans.: “Radical Physicalism and ‘the Real World’,” in Neurath, O., Philosophical Papers 1913–1946, Cohen, R. S. and Neurath, M. (eds.), 100–114. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/BF01793498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neurath, O. 2004/1913: “Zur Stellung des Sittlichen Werturteils in der Wissenschaftlichen Nationalökonomie,” in Verein für Sozialpolitik 1913, 31–32. Trans.: “On the Role of Moral Value Judgements in Economic Science,” in Neurath, O., Economic Writings: Selections 1904–1945, Uebel, T. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), 297–298. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Neurath, O. 2004/1920a: “Ein System der Sozialisierung,” Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 48: 44–73. Trans.: “A System of Socialisation,” in Neurath, O., Economic Writings: Selections 1904–1945, Uebel, T. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), 345–370. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Neurath, O. 2004/1920b: Vollsozialisierung. Jena: Diederichs. Trans.: “Total Socialisation,” in Neurath, O., Economic Writings: Selections 1904–1945, Uebel, T. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), 371–404. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Neurath, O., Hahn, H., and Carnap, R. 1973/1929: “Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung: Der Wiener Kreis,” in Otto Neurath: Empiricism and Sociology, Neurath, M., and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), 299–318. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-010-2525-6_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nietzsche, F. 2001/1882: The Gay Science: With a Prelude in German Rhymes and an Appendix of Songs, Williams, B. (ed.), J. Nauckhoff (trans., text), and A. Cel Caro (trans., poems). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. 2024: “Scientific Progress,” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, E. Zalta and U. Nodelman (eds.). plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2024/entries/scientific-progress/.Google Scholar
Nola, R. 2018: “The Enlightenment: Truths behind a Misleading Abstraction,” in History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching: New Perspectives, Matthews, M. R. (ed.), 43–66. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-62616-1_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noll, S. and Murdock, E. G. 2020: “Whose Justice Is It Anyway? Mitigating the Tensions between Food Security and Food Sovereignty,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 33: 1–14.10.1007/s10806-019-09809-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, J. 2022: Embodied Humanism: Toward Solidarity and Sensuous Enjoyment. London: Lexington.Google Scholar
Normore, C. 2010: “Fool’s Good and Other Issues: Comment on Akeel Bilgrami’s Self-Knowledge and Resentment,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81: 766–772.10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00454.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosek, B. A. et al. 2018: “Evaluating the Replicability of Social Science Experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015,” Nature Human Behaviour 2: 637–644.Google Scholar
NowThis Impact 2020: “Trump’s Widespread and Well-Coordinated War on Science.” www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFPa_aJ9X28.Google Scholar
Numbers, R. L. 2009: Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674054394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 1995: “Aristotle on Human Nature and the Foundations of Ethics,” in World, Mind, and Ethics: Essays on the Ethical Philosophy of Bernard Williams, Altham, J. E. J. and Harrison, R. (eds.), 86–131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621086.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2016: Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
O’Connell, H. E., Sanjeevan, K. V., and Hutson, J. M. 2005: “Anatomy of the Clitoris,” The Journal of Urology 174: 1189–1195.10.1097/01.ju.0000173639.38898.cdCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oh, S. S., et al. 2015: “Diversity in Clinical and Biomedical Research: A Promise Yet to Be Fulfilled,” PLOS Medicine 12: e1001918.10.1371/journal.pmed.1001918CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okruhlik, K. 2004: “Logical Empiricism, Feminism, and Neurath’s Auxiliary Motive,” Hypatia 19: 48–72.10.1111/j.1527-2001.2004.tb01268.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Open Science Collaboration 2015: “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science,” Science 349: aac4716-1–aac4716-8.Google Scholar
Oreskes, N. 2014: “Why We Should Trust Scientists.” www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxyQNEVOElU&t=38s.Google Scholar
Oreskes, N. and Conway, E. M. 2010: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Osborne, N. G. and Feit, M. D. 1992: “The Use of Race in Medical Research,” Journal of the American Medical Association 267: 275–279.10.1001/jama.1992.03480020085037CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Otto, S. 2016: The War on Science: Who’s Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do about It. Minneapolis: Milkweed.Google Scholar
Owen, D. 1994: Maturity and Modernity: Nietzsche, Weber, Foucault, and the Ambivalence of Reason. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Page, A. E., et al. 2019: “Testing Adaptive Hypotheses of Alloparenting in Agta Foragers,” Nature Human Behavior 3: 1154–1163.10.1038/s41562-019-0679-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pappas, G. F. 2008: John Dewey’s Ethics: Democracy as Experience. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.10.2979/5158.0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peacocke, A. 1993: Theology for a Scientific Age: Being and Becoming – Natural and Divine. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pedwell, T. 2012: “Scientists Take Aim at Harper Cuts with ‘Death of Evidence’ Protest on Parliament Hill,” The Globe and Mail. www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/scientists-take-aim-at-harper-cuts-with-death-of-evidence-protest-on-parliament-hill/article4403233/.Google Scholar
Peels, R. 2018: “A Conceptual Map of Scientism”, in Scientism: Prospects and Problems, de Ridder, J., Peels, R, and van Woudenberg, R (eds.), 28–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Persson, R. S. 2007: “The Myth of the Antisocial Genius: A Survey Study of the Socio-Emotional Aspects of High-IQ Individuals,” Gifted and Talented International 22: 19–34.10.1080/15332276.2007.11673492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pertry, I., Sanou, I. R. E., Speelman, S., and Ingelbrecht, I. 2016: “The Success Story of Bt Cotton in Burkina Faso: A Role Model for Sustainable Cotton Production in Other Cotton-Growing Countries?,” in Innovative Farming and Forestry across the Emerging World: The Role of Genetically Modified Crops and Trees, De Buck, S., Ingelbrecht, I., Heijde, M., and Van Montagu, M. (eds.), 81–93. Ghent: International Industrial Biotechnology Network.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center 2021: “Amid a Series of Mass Shootings in the U.S., Gun Policy Remains Deeply Divisive,” Pew Research Center. www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/04/20/amid-a-series-of-mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-gun-policy-remains-deeply-divisive/.Google Scholar
Pielke, R. A. 2007: The Honest Broker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511818110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, A. J. 2020: “Whose Lives Matter? The Black Lives Matter Movement and the Contested Legacy of Philosophical Humanism,” Journal of Social Philosophy 51: 261–282.10.1111/josp.12305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. 2002: The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 2011: The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 2018: Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Pippin, R. 1998: Idealism as Modernism: Hegelian Variations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plewis, I. 2019: “Adopting Hybrid Bt Cotton: Using Interrupted Time-Series Analysis to Assess Its Effects on Farmers in Northern India,” Review of Agrarian Studies 9: 4–23.10.25003/RAS.09.02.0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M. 1962: “The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economical Theory,” Minerva 1: 54–74.10.1007/BF01101453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popkin, R. 2003: The History of Scepticism: From Savonarola to Bayle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195107678.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, E. 2021: “Black Workers Stopped Making Progress on Pay. Is It Racism?,” New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2021/06/28/business/economy/black-workers-racial-pay-gap.html.Google Scholar
Potochnik, A. 2017: Idealization and the Aims of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226507194.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, M. 2011: “To Replicate or Not to Replicate?,” Science, December 2. www.sciencemag.org/careers/2011/12/replicate-or-not-replicate.Google Scholar
Proctor, R. 1995: Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don’t Know about Cancer. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1975: “What Is Mathematical Truth?,” in Mathematics, Matter and Method, 60–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1981: Reason, Truth, and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511625398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. 2002: The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Radder, H. 2012: “What Prospects for a General Philosophy of Science?,” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 43: 89–92.10.1007/s10838-012-9180-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radder, H. (ed.) 2010: The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Radder, H. 2019: From Commodification to the Common Good: Reconstructing Science, Technology, and Society. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.10.2307/j.ctvnb7qrhCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radnitzky, G. 1978: “The Boundaries of Science and Technology,” in The Search for Absolute Values in a Changing World, Volume 2: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences, 1007–1036. New York: International Cultural Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Ratcliffe, M. 2013: “Phenomenology, Naturalism and the Sense of Reality,” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 72: 67–88.10.1017/S1358246113000052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1942/1927: From Copernicus to Einstein. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1951: The Rise of Scientific Philosophy. Los Angeles: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520341760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1978/1928a: “Philosophy of the Natural Sciences,” in Hans Reichenbach: Selected Writings, 1909–1953, Volume 1, Reichenbach, M. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), 228–231. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-9761-5_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1978/1928b: “The World View of the Exact Sciences,” in Hans Reichenbach: Selected Writings, 1909–1953, Volume 1, Reichenbach, M. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), 241–244. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-9761-5_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1978/1930: “The Philosophical Significance of Modern Physics,” in Hans Reichenbach: Selected Writings, 1909–1953, Volume 1, Reichenbach, M. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), 304–323. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-9761-5_35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1978/1931: “Aims and Methods of Modern Philosophy of Nature,” in Hans Reichenbach: Selected Writings, 1909–1953, Volume 1, Reichenbach, M. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), 359–388. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-9761-5_40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenberg, A. et al. 2006: “Advancing Paternal Age and Autism,” Archives for General Psychiatry 63: 1026–1032.10.1001/archpsyc.63.9.1026CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., and Andrews, G. 2022: “Gender Differences in Self-estimated Intelligence: Exploring the Male Hubris, Female Humility Problem,” Frontiers in Psychology 13: doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.812483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reisch, G. A. 2005: How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science: To the Icy Slopes of Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511610318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remarque, E. M. 1982/1928: All Quiet on the Western Front. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Reyes-Galindo, L. 2021: “Post-truth and Science,” in Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science, Ludwig, D., Koskinen, I., Mncube, Z., Poliseli, L., and Reyes-Galindo, L. (eds.), 183–195. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781003027140-20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, A. 2013: “Taking the Measure of Carnap’s Philosophical Engineering: Metalogic as Metrology,” in The Historical Turn in Analytic Philosophy, Reck, E. (ed.), 60–77. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. 2017: “‘Neither a Confession nor an Accusation’: Michael Polanyi, Hans Reichenbach, and Philosophical Modernity after World War One,” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 47: 423–442.10.1525/hsns.2017.47.3.423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, A. 2021: “Hans Reichenbach, Radio Philosopher: A Preliminary Report,” Synthese 199: 12625–12641.10.1007/s11229-021-03345-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, A. 2022: “The Social Virtue of Science: Motivating Structural Objectivity in Logical Empiricism,” in The Socio-Ethical Dimension of Knowledge: The Mission of Logical Empiricism, Damböck, C. and Tuboly, A. T. (eds.), 33–51. Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
Richardson, S. S. 2009: “The Left Vienna Circle, Part 1: Carnap, Neurath, and the Left Vienna Circle Thesis” and “The Left Vienna Circle, Part 2: The Left Vienna Circle, Disciplinary History, and Feminist Philosophy of Science,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40: 14–24, 167–174.10.1016/j.shpsa.2008.12.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridley, M. 1994: The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Ritchie, S. J. et al. 2018: “Sex Differences in the Adult Human Brain: Evidence from 5216 UK Biobank Participants,” Cerebral Cortex 28: 2959–2975.10.1093/cercor/bhy109CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rivera Cusicanqui, S. 2010: Ch’ixinakax Utxiwa: Una Reflexión Sobre Prácticas y Discursos Descolonizadores. Buenos Aires: Tinta Limón.Google Scholar
Robbins, L. 1932: On the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan.Rohe, W. 2017: “The Contract between Society and Science: Changes and Challenges,” Social Research: An International Quarterly 84: 739–757.Google Scholar
Rollin, K. 2017: “Can Social Diversity Be Best Incorporated into Science by Adopting the Social Value Management Ideal?,” in Current Controversies in Value and Science, Elliott, K. C. and Steel, D. (eds.), 113–129. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9781315639420-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rømer, T. A. 2012: “Dewey’s Philosophy: Intelligent Transactions in a Democratic Context,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 44: 133–150.10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00623.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romizi, D. 2012. “The Vienna Circle’s ‘Scientific World-Conception’: Philosophy of Science in the Political Arena,” HOPOS 2: 205–242.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A. 2018: “Philosophical Challenges for Scientism (and How to Meet Them?),” in Scientism: Prospects and Problems, de Ridder, J., Peels, R., and van Woudenberg, R. (eds.), 83–105. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rossman, I. 1978: “Sexuality and Aging: An Internist’s Perspective,” in Sexuality and Aging, Solnick, R. L. (ed.), 66–77. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press.Google Scholar
Roughley, N. 2021: “Human Nature,” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, E. Zalta (ed.). plato.stanford.edu/entries/human-nature/.Google Scholar
Rouse, J. 2005: “Power/Knowledge,” in The Cambridge Companion to Foucault, Gutting, G. (ed.), 95–122. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CCOL0521840821.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowell, T. E. 1974: “The Concept of Social Dominance,” Behavioural Biology 11: 131–154.10.1016/S0091-6773(74)90289-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roy, S. and Edwards, M. A. 2017a: “Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition,” Environmental Engineering Science 34: 51–61.Google Scholar
Roy, S. and Edwards, M. A. 2017b: “Science Is Broken: Perverse Incentives and the Misuse of Quantitative Metrics Have Undermined the Integrity of Scientific Research,” Aeon. aeon.co/essays/science-is-a-public-good-in-peril-heres-how-to-fix-it.Google Scholar
Rudner, R. 1953: “The Scientist qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments,” Philosophy of Science 20: 1–6.10.1086/287231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruphy, S. 2019: “Public Participation in the Setting of Research and Innovation Agenda: Virtues and Challenges from a Philosophical Perspective,” in Innovation beyond Technology: Science for Society and Interdisciplinary Approaches, Fujigaki, Y., Laugier, S., and Lechevalier, S. (eds.), 243–263. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-981-13-9053-1_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Said, E. W. 2004: Humanism and Democratic Criticism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Sarewitz, D. 2004: “How Science Makes Environmental Controversies Worse,” Environmental Science & Policy 7: 385–403.10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargent, R. 2002: “Francis Bacon and the Humanistic Aspects of Modernity,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 26: 124–139.10.1111/1475-4975.261058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargent, R. 2005: “Virtues and the Scientific Revolution,” in Scientific Values and Civic Virtues, Koertge, N. (ed.), 71–80. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0195172256.003.0006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargent, R. 2012: “From Bacon to Banks: The Vision and the Realities of Pursuing Science for the Common Good,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43: 82–90.10.1016/j.shpsa.2011.10.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sarton, G. 1930: “Review of Humanism and America by Norman Foerster,” Isis 14: 446–449.10.1086/346528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartre, J. 1957: Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology, H. Barnes (trans.). London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Sartre, J. 1966/1946: Existentialism and Humanism, P. Mairet (trans.). London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Schaffer, S. 1997: “The Earth’s Fertility as a Social Fact in Early Modern England,” in Nature and Society in Historical Context, Teich, M., Porter, R., and Gustafsson, B. (eds.), 124–147. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. 1936: “Meaning and Verification,” Philosophical Review 45: 339–369.10.2307/2180487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulenberg, U. 2021: “Pragmatism, Humanism, and Form,” European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy 13: 1–23.Google Scholar
Scimecca, J. A. and Goodwin, G. A. 2003: “Jane Addams: The First Humanist Sociologist,” Humanity and Society 27: 143–157.10.1177/016059760302700204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seigfried, C. H. 1999: “Socializing Democracy: Jane Addams and John Dewey,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 29: 207–230.10.1177/004839319902900203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seigfried, C. H. 2002: “Introduction to the Illinois Edition,” in Democracy and Social Ethics, Seigfried, C. H. (ed.), ix–xxxviii. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shah, E., Ludwig, D., and Macnaghten, P. 2021: “The Complexity of the Gene and the Precision of CRISPR: What Is the Gene that Is Being Edited?,” Elementa: Science of Anthropocene 9: 00072.Google Scholar
Shapin, S. 2010: “Lowering the Tone in the History of Science: A Noble Calling,” in Never Pure: Historical Studies of Science as If It Was Produced by People with Bodies, Situated in Time, Space, Culture, and Society, and Struggling for Credibility and Authority, 1–14. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.10.56021/9780801894206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharar, S. 1983: The Fourth Estate: A History of Women in the Middle Ages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shelby, T. 2016: Dark Ghettos: Injustice, Dissent, and Reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sheldrake, R. 2015. “The Replicability Crisis in Science.” www.sheldrake.org/essays/the-replicability-crisis-in-science.Google Scholar
Shen, B. S. P. 1975: “Views – Science Literacy: Public Understanding of Science Is Becoming Vitally Needed in Developing and Industrialized Countries Alike,” American Scientist 63: 265–268.Google Scholar
Sher, G. 2013: “Forms of Correspondence: The Intricate Route from Thought to Reality,” in Truth and Pluralism: Current Debates, Pedersen, N. J. L. L. and Wright, C. (eds.), 157–179. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195387469.003.0008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipton, P. 1990: “African Famines and Food Security: Anthropological Perspectives,” Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 353–394.Google Scholar
Shiva, V. 1991: The Violence of the Green Revolution: Third World Agriculture, Ecology and Politics. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Shiva, V., Jafri, A. H., Emani, A., and Pande, M. 2000: Seeds of Suicide: The Ecological and Human Costs of Globalisation of Agriculture. New Delhi: Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology.Google Scholar
Shusterman, R. 2012. Thinking Through the Body: Essays in Somaesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139094030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simba, P. 2021: A Feminist Critique of Ubuntu: Implications for Citizenship Education in Zimbabwe, doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch University.Google Scholar
Simpson, L. C. 2001: The Unfinished Project: Toward a Postmetaphysical Humanism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Singh, D. 1993: “Adaptive Significance of Female Physical Attractiveness: Role of Waist-to-Hip Ratio,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65: 293–307.10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.293CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skoyles, J. R. 1999: “Human Evolution Expanded Brains to Increase Expertise Capacity, not IQ,” Psycoloquy 10: 1–14.Google Scholar
Slater, M., Huxster, J., and Bresticker, J. 2019: “Understanding and Trusting Science,” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 50: 247–261.10.1007/s10838-019-09447-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smilie, K. D. 2016: “Unthinkable Allies? John Dewey, Irving Babbitt and ‘The Menace of the Specialized Narrowness’,” Journal of Curriculum Studies 48: 113–135.10.1080/00220272.2015.1043950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, T. 2012: “Scientists Stage Mock Funeral to Protest Cuts to Research,” Canada.com. www.canada.com/business/Scientists+stage+mock+funeral+protest+cuts+research/6913396/story.htm.Google Scholar
Smith-Spark, L. and Hanna, J. 2017: “March for Science: Protesters Gather Worldwide to Support ‘Evidence’,” CNN. www.cnn.com/2017/04/22/health/global-march-for-science/index.html.Google Scholar
Snaza, N. 2017: “Is John Dewey’s Thought ‘Humanist’?,” Journal of Curriculum Theorizing 32: 15–34.Google Scholar
Snow, C. P. 1959: The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sokal, A. and Bricmont, J. 1998: Intellectual Impostures: Postmodern Philosophers’ Abuse of Science. London: Profile.Google Scholar
Soucheray, S. 2020: “US Blacks 3 Times More Likely than Whites to Get COVID-19,” CIDRAP News. www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/08/us-blacks-3-times-more-likely-whites-get-covid-19.Google Scholar
Sowell, E. R. et al. 2007: “Sex Differences in Cortical Thickness Mapped in 176 Healthy Individuals between 7 and 87 Years of Age,” Cerebral Cortex 17: 1550–1560.Google ScholarPubMed
Specter, M. 2014: “Seeds of Doubt,” New Yorker. www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/25/seeds-of-doubt.Google Scholar
Spengler, O. 1991/1922/1918: The Decline of the West. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spivak, G. 1988: “Can the Subaltern Speak?,” in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, Nelson, C. and Grossberg, L. (eds.), 271–313. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Spriggs, W. 2020: “Is Now a Teachable Moment for Economists? An Open Letter to Economists from Bill Spriggs.” www.minneapolisfed.org/~/media/assets/people/william-spriggs/spriggs-letter_0609_b.pdf.Google Scholar
Stadler, F. 2015: The Vienna Circle: Studies in the Origins, Development, and Influence of Logical Empiricism, 2nd edition. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-16561-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadler, F. 2018: “George Sarton, Ernst Mach, and the Unity of Science Movement: A Case Study in History and Philosophy of Science,” Sartoniana 31: 63–121.Google Scholar
Steel, D. 2010: “Epistemic Values and the Argument from Inductive Risk,” Philosophy of Science 77: 14–34.10.1086/650206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenmark, M. 2018: “Scientism and Its Rivals,” in Scientism: Prospects and Problems, de Ridder, J., Peels, R., and van Woudenberg, R. (eds.), 57–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stroud, S. R. 2011: John Dewey and the Artful Life: Pragmatism, Aesthetics, Morality. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Stuchlik, J. 2011: “Felicitology: Neurath’s Naturalization of Ethics,” HOPOS 1: 183–207.Google Scholar
Stuhr, J. J. 1997: Genealogical Pragmatism: Philosophy, Experience, and Community. Albany: University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Sumberg, J., Thompson, J., and Woodhouse, P. 2012: Contested Agronomy: Agricultural Research in a Changing World. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203125434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabliabue, G. M. and Miller, H. 2019: “Letter Regarding Dr Vandana Shiva’s Anti-Scientific and Unethical Stances,” European Scientist. www.europeanscientist.com/en/features/letter-regarding-dr-vandana-shivas-anti-scientific-and-unethical-stances/.Google Scholar
Tallis, R. 2011: Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis, and the Misrepresentation of Humanity. Durham, NC: Acumen.10.1017/UPO9781844652747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, C. 1989: Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, P. J. and Patzke, K. 2021: “From Radical Science to STS,” Science as Culture 30: 1–10.10.1080/09505431.2020.1857351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R. and Jasinski, J. L. 2011: “Femicide and the Feminist Perspective,” Homicide Studies 15: 341–362.10.1177/1088767911424541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theocharis, T. and Psimopoulos, M. 1987: “Where Science Has Gone Wrong,” Nature 329: 595–598.10.1038/329595a0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, S. 1970: “Does the Distinction between Normal and Revolutionary Science Hold Water?,” in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), 39–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139171434.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Touraille, P. and Gouyon, P. H. 2008: “Why Are Women Smaller than Men? When Anthropology Meets Evolutionary Biology.” Nature Precedings. https://doi.org/10.1038/npre.2008.1832.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treves, A., Wallace, R. B., Naughton-Treves, L., and Morales, A. 2006: “Co-managing Human–Wildlife Conflicts: A Review,” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 11: 383–396.10.1080/10871200600984265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuboly, A. T. and Richardson, A. (eds.) 2024: Interpreting Carnap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, C. 2013: The War on Science: Muzzled Scientists and Wilful Blindness in Stephen Harper’s Canada. Vancouver: Greystone.Google Scholar
Twain, M. 2014/1884: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Rasmussen, R. K. (ed.). New York: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
Uebel, T. 1996: “On Neurath’s Boat,” in Otto Neurath: Philosophy between Science and Politics, Cartwright, N., Cat, J., Fleck, L., and Uebel, T., 89–166. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Uebel, T. 1998: “Enlightenment and the Vienna Circle’s Scientific World-Conception,” in Philosophers on Education: New Historical Perspectives, Rorty, O. (ed.), 418–438. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Uebel, T. 2005: “Political Philosophy of Science in Logical Empiricism: The Left Vienna Circle,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 36: 754–773.Google Scholar
Uebel, T. 2009: “Neurath’s Protocol Statements Revisited: Sketch of a Theory of Scientific Testimony,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40: 4–13.Google Scholar
Uebel, T. 2010: “What’s Right about the Left Vienna Circle Thesis: A Refutation,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 41: 214–221.10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uebel, T. 2012: “Carnap, Philosophy and ‘Politics in Its Broadest Sense’,” in Carnap and the Legacy of Logical Empiricism, Creath, R. (ed.), 133–148. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-3929-1_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uebel, T. 2018: “Calculation in Kind and Substantive Rationality: Neurath, Weber, Kapp,” History of Political Economy 50: 289–320.10.1215/00182702-6608590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uebel, T. 2019: “Neurath on Verstehen,” European Journal of Philosophy 27: 912–938.10.1111/ejop.12469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uebel, T. 2020: “Intersubjective Accountability: Politics and Philosophy in the Left Vienna Circle,” Perspectives on Science 28: 35–62.10.1162/posc_a_00332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uebel, T. 2022: “More on Neurath on Verstehen: The Rejection of Weber’s Ideal-Type Methodology,” in The History of Understanding in Analytic Philosophy: Around Logical Empiricism, Tuboly, A. T. (ed.), 103–134. London: Bloomsbury.10.5040/9781350159235.ch-005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaesen, K. and Katzav, J. 2019: “The National Science Foundation and Philosophy of Science’s Withdrawal from Social Concerns,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 78: 73–82.Google ScholarPubMed
Valentine, F., Allainé, D., Gaillard, J., and Cohas, A. 2020: “Evolutionary Pathways to Communal and Cooperative Breeding in Carnivores,” The American Naturalist 195: 1037–1055.Google Scholar
Van der Ploeg, J. D. 2018: The New Peasantries: Struggles for Autonomy and Sustainability in an Era of Empire and Globalization. Milton Park: Routledge.10.4324/9781315114712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Vegt, R. 2018: “A Literature Review on the Relationships between Risk Governance and Public Engagement in Relation to Complex Environmental Issues,” Journal of Risk Research 21: 1.10.1080/13669877.2017.1351466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varea, S. and Zaragocin, S. (eds.) 2017: Feminismo y Buen Vivir: Utopías Decoloniales. Cuenca: Pydlos Ediciones.Google Scholar
Verein Ernst Mach (ed.) 2012/1929: Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung: Der Wiener Kreis, Vienna: Wolf. Trans.: “The Scientific World-Conception: The Vienna Circle,” in Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung: Der Wiener Kreis. Hrsg. vom Verein Ernst Mach (1929),” F. Stadler and T. Uebel (eds.), 75–116. Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
Verein für Sozialpolitik 1913: Äusserungen zur Werturteilsdiskussion im Ausschuss des Vereins für Sozialpolitik. Private printing for members. Reprinted 1996: Der Werturteilsstreit, Nau, H. H (ed.), 65–200. Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
Vickers, B. 2000: “The Myth of Bacon’s ‘Anti-Humanism’,” in Humanism and Early Modern Philosophy, Kraye, J. and Stone, M. W. F. (eds.), 135–158. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vijayan, D., Ludwig, D., Rybak, C., Kaechele, H., Hoffmann, H., Schönfeldt, H. C., and Löhr, K. 2022: “Indigenous Knowledge in Food System Transformations,” Communications Earth & Environment 3: 1–3.10.1038/s43247-022-00543-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vives, J. L. 1948/1518: “A Fable about Man,” N. Lenkeith (trans.), in The Renaissance Philosophy of Man, Cassirer, E., Kristeller, P. O., and Randall, J. H., Jr. (eds.), 387–393. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Von Grebmer, K. et al. 2020: 2020 Global Hunger Index – One Decade to Zero Hunger: Linking Health and Sustainable Food Systems. Bonn: Welthungerhilfe; and Dublin: Concern Worldwide. www.globalhungerindex.org/pdf/en/2020.pdf.Google Scholar
Vrieze, J. D. 2017: “Bruno Latour, A Veteran of the ‘Science Wars,’ Has a New Mission,” Science Magazine. www.science.org/content/article/bruno-latour-veteran-science-wars-has-new-mission.Google Scholar
Wai, J., Cacchio, M., Putallaz, M., and Makel, M. C. 2010: “Sex Differences in the Right Tail of Cognitive Abilities: A 30-Year Examination,” Intelligence 38: 412–423.10.1016/j.intell.2010.04.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waks, L. J. 1998: “Experimentalism and the Flow of Experience,” Educational Theory 1: 1–19.10.1111/j.1741-5446.1998.00001.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R. S., Hill, K. R., Flinn, M. V., and Ellsworth, R. M. 2011: “Evolutionary History of Hunter-Gatherer Marriage Practices,” PLOS One 6: e19066–e19066.10.1371/journal.pone.0019066CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallace, A. R. 1889: Darwinism: An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection with Some of Its Applications. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Watene, K. 2016: “Valuing Nature: Māori Philosophy and the Capability Approach,” Oxford Development Studies 44: 287–296.10.1080/13600818.2015.1124077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, M. 2004/1917: “Science as a Vocation,” in The Vocation Lectures, Owen, D. and Strong, T. B. (eds.), R. Livingstone (trans.), 1–31. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 2012/1904: “Die ‘Objektivität’ Sozialwissenschaftlicher und Sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis,” Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 19: 22–87. Trans.: “The ‘Objectivity’ of Knowledge in Social Science and Social Policy,” in Weber, M., Collected Methodological Writings, Brun, H. H. and Whimster, S. (eds.), 100–138. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 2012/1917: “Der Sinn der ‘Wertfreiheit’ der Soziologischen und Ökonomischen Wissenschaften,” revised edition, Logos 7: 40–88. Trans.: “The Meaning of ‘Value Freedom’ in the Sociological and Economic Sciences,” in Weber, M., Collected Methodological Writings, Brun, H. H. and Whimster, S. (eds.), 304–334. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 2012/1919: Wissenschaft als Beruf. Munich: Duncker & Humblot. Trans.: “Science as Profession and Vocation,” in Weber, M., Collected Methodological Writings, Brun, H. H. and Whimster, S. (eds.), 335–353. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Welch, H. G., Schwartz, L. M., and Woloshin, S. 2011: Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Weldon, S. P. 2020: The Scientific Spirit of American Humanism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.10.1353/book.77969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westbrook, R. B. 1991: John Dewey and American Democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Whiting, D. 2019: “Whither Higher-Order Evidence?,” in Higher-Order Evidence: New Essays, Steglich-Petersen, A. and Skipper, M. (eds.), 246–264. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198829775.003.0012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wikipedia Contributors 2023: “R/K selection theory,” Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R/K_selection_theory&oldid=1145864079.Google Scholar
Wilholt, T. and Glimell, H. 2011: “Conditions of Science: The Three-Way Tension of Freedom, Accountability and Utility,” in Science in the Context of Application, Carrier, M. and Nordmann, A. (eds.), 351–370. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Williams, B. 1985: Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, B. 2008: Philosophy as a Humanistic Discipline. Moore, A. W. (ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. 2004: “The Preferences of Women,” in Moral Psychology: Feminist Ethics and Social Theory, Walker, M. U. and des Autels, P. (eds.), 99–117. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.10.5040/9798881815950.ch-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, E. O. 2004: On Human Nature, revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674076549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1953: Philosophical Investigations, Anscombe, G. E. M. (ed.). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wittrock, C., Forsberg, E. M., Pols, A., Macnaghten, P., and Ludwig, D., 2021: Implementing Responsible Research and Innovation: Organisational and National Conditions. Cham: Springer Nature.10.1007/978-3-030-54286-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank 2021a: “Employment in Agriculture (% of Total Employment) (Modelled ILO Estimate.” data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS.Google Scholar
World Bank 2021b: “Responding to a Stark Rise in Food Insecurity across the Poorest Countries,” World Blogs. blogs.worldbank.org/en/voices/responding-stark-rise-food-insecurity-across-poorest-countries.Google Scholar
Worthy, G. and Yestrebsky, C. 2018: “Break Down Silos,” Scientific American 319: 64–67.Google ScholarPubMed
Wray, K. B. 2021a: Kuhn’s Intellectual Path: Charting the Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. (ed.) 2021b: Interpreting Kuhn: Critical Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108653206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, R. 1996: “Technology, Gender and Class: Worlds of Difference in Ur III Mesopotamia,” in Gender and Archaeology, Wright, R. (ed.), 79–110. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
WUR 2021: “University Rankings.” www.wur.nl/en/education-programmes/wageningen-university/rankings.htm.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 2012: “Feminist Philosophy of Science: Standpoint Matters,” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 86: 47–76.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 2015: “A Plurality of Pluralisms: Collaborative Practice in Archaeology,” in Objectivity in Science, Padovani, F., Richardson, A., and Tsou, J. Y., 189–210. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-14349-1_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, A. 2022: “Humanizing Science and Philosophy of Science: George Sarton, Contextualist Philosophies of Science, and the Indigenous/Science Project,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 52: 256–278.10.1017/can.2022.33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamamoto, Y. 2012: “Values, Objectivity and Credibility of Scientists in a Contentious Natural Resource Debate,” Public Understanding of Science 21: 101–125.10.1177/0963662510371435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yap, A. 2010: “Feminism and Carnap’s Principle of Tolerance,” Hypatia 25: 437–454.10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.01080.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yi, B.-U. 1999: “Is Two a Property?,” Journal of Philosophy 96: 163–190.10.2307/2564701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, I. M. 1990: Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, M. E. 1990: Heidegger’s Confrontation with Modernity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.10.2979/1897.0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckmayer, C. 1994/1929: “Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front,” in The Weimar Republic Sourcebook, Kaes, A., Jay, M., and Dimendberg, E. (eds.), 23–24. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
The HTML of this book
complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You have
Access
Open access