MARC Record from marc_columbia

LEADER: 03456cam a22003854a 4500
001 6999790
005 20221130202312.0
008 080701t20092009maua b 001 0 eng
010 $a 2008029433
020 $a9780262182713 (hardcover)
020 $a0262182718 (hardcover)
024 $a40016298924
035 $a(OCoLC)ocn233635086
035 $a(OCoLC)233635086
035 $a(NNC)6999790
035 $a6999790
040 $aDLC$cDLC$dBTCTA$dYDXCP$dC#P$dOrLoB-B
050 00 $aB3258.H324$bR444 2009
082 00 $a121$222
100 1 $aRehg, William.$0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n93077204
245 10 $aCogent science in context :$bthe science wars, argumentation theory, and Habermas /$cWilliam Rehg.
260 $aCambridge, Mass. :$bMIT Press,$c[2009], ©2009.
300 $ax, 345 pages :$billustrations ;$c24 cm.
336 $atext$btxt$2rdacontent
337 $aunmediated$bn$2rdamedia
490 1 $aStudies in contemporary German social thought
504 $aIncludes bibliographical references (p. [313]-335) and index.
505 00 $tIntroduction: Science Wars, New and Old -- $gI.$tThe Argumentative Turn in Science Studies -- $g1.$tScience as Argumentative Practice -- $g2.$tKuhn's Gap: From Logic to Sociolog -- $g3.$tClosing the Gap: Three Rhetorical Perspectives on Science -- $tPostscript I: The Return of the Logical Achinstein's Realist Theory of Evidence -- $gII.$tIntegrating Perspectives: Habermas's Discourse Theory -- $g4.$tHabermas's Critical Theory and Science: Truth and Accountability -- $g5.$tHabermas's Theory of Argumentation as an Integrated Model of Cogency -- $g6.$tArgumentation at Fermilab: Putting the Habermasian Model to Work -- $tPostscript II: Who's Afraid of SSK? The Problem and Possibilities of Interdisciplinary Cooperation -- $gIII.$tToward a Critical Contextualist Framework for Interdisciplinary Assessment -- $g7.$tAdjusting the Pragmatic Turn: Lessons from Ethnomethodology -- $g8.$tThree Dimensions of Argument Cogency-A Contextualist Case Study -- $g9.$tCritical Science Studies and the Good Society.
520 1 $a"Recent years have seen a series of intense, increasingly acrimonious debates over the status and legitimacy of the natural sciences. These "science wars" take place in the public arena - with current battles over evolution and global warming - and in academia, where assumptions about scientific objectivity have been called into question. Given these hostilities, what makes a scientific claim merit our consideration? In Cogent Science in Context, William Rehg examines what makes scientific arguments cogent - that is, strong and convincing - and how we should assess that cogency. Drawing on the tools of argumentation theory, Rehg proposes a multidimensional, context-sensitive framework both for understanding the cogency of scientific arguments and for conducting cooperative interdisciplinary assessments of the cogency of actual scientific arguments."--BOOK JACKET.
600 10 $aHabermas, Jürgen.$0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n78093535
650 0 $aScience$xPhilosophy.$0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85118582
650 0 $aDebates and debating.$0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85036124
650 0 $aPersuasion (Rhetoric)$0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85100176
830 0 $aStudies in contemporary German social thought.$0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n42023819
852 00 $boff,glx$hB3258.H324$iR444 2009