Abstract
Heterodoxy is defined as “deviation from accepted or orthodox standards or beliefs.” I ask here whether this movement could include deviation from such accepted standards of science as reliance on empirical observation and objectivity to determine whether theories, hypotheses, and other conceptual entities correspond to reality. Being an accepted standard certainly can not mean that any method should be rejected out of hand, especially if it has been well established after multiple successes and despite numerous challenges to its validity. Science as traditionally understood meets such criteria in abundance. After establishing this claim, I turn to a criticism of alternative “ways of knowing” that are promoted in part on their being heterodox challenges to the hegemony of so-called “Eurocentric” science. The validity of such alternative epistemologies is found wanting in numerous respects, notably the demonstrable fallibility of proposed methods, the openness to contradiction, and the unwarranted and partisan substitution of ideology for the goal of objective understanding. There are three implications of this thesis, if correct. One, any social “science” aspiring to merit the label is ill-advised to further weaken its already tenuous standing as a science. Second, people who have much to gain from the scientific study of humans and their societies lose if we adopt lesser tools inadequate to such a challenging task. Third, those committed to science should extol its virtues loudly, and resist heterodox or other challenges to its special status relative to any other claim to truth-telling.
Presenters
James ClarkProfessor of Psychology, Psychology, University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Details
Presentation Type
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session
Theme
2022 Special Focus—At the Crossroads of Paradigms: Considering Heterodoxy in the Social Sciences
KEYWORDS
Epistemology, Heterodoxy, Science, Empiricism
