POLITICAL EPISTEMOLOGY

This class introduces political epistemology as a critical reflection on science and scientific culture at the intersection of various disciplinary lines of inquiry, which include:

a. the philosophy of science;
b. the history and sociology of science;
c. political theory.

The class of 2024/25 dealt with a. the political epistemology of ecology in connection with b. the criticism of technocracy and c. a specific focus on hydrology.
The 2025/26 course broadened the scope of the topic to include risk in the nuclear sector.
This year’s course will follow on from previous years, covering kindered topics. The recommended reading list will be announced in due course.

General objectives:
• To introduce students to political epistemology;
• To explore the ways to connect main problems of the philosophy of science (e.g., the origins, practices, validity, function, and goals of science) with the history of science;
• To address crucial topics of political epistemology, e.g., the problems of science’s collective character and the politics of science;
• To become capable of reflecting of and discussing philosophical classics in historical-political epistemology and critically interpret them in the light of political-theoretical concerns.

Specific objectives:
• To explore this year's specific problematic.

• General background knowledge of philosophy, its history and approaches;
• Enthusiasm and readiness to engage with challenging historical and philosophical discussions and readings;
• Knowledge of English, in order to read the materials and participate in the discussion

The meetings will have a seminar-like character, alternating frontal teaching and sources-based discussion.
Students will be introduced to the main problems of political epistemology, such as the political aprioris of science, the connection of science and power, knowledge property, knowledge economy, interests and knowledge, ideology and technocracy, science collectivism, etc.

Primary sources will constitute the basis for an in-depth study and comprehension of the scientific, philosophical and political challenges of our epistemic culture on the basis of key topics/cases.

The students are expected to read in advance the texts that constitute the focus of the various classes according to the course calendar.

Course Schedule
1.
Intro: historical epistemology, political epistemology, political ontology
a. Canguilhem, “Object of the history of science”
b. Omodeo, Political Epistemology
c. Wolfe, “Gaukroger and the neutrality of historical epistemology”
d. For a mean critique have a look at Gingras, “Naming without Necessity”
2.
Knowledge from below (and the case of medical empiricism)
a. Ginzburg, “Forbidden knowledge”
b. Mellyn, Review of David Gentilcore, Medical Charlatanism
c. Ienna and Wolfe, “Introduction: Knowledge from Below”
d. suggested: Moir, “Reich and sexology from below”
3.
Hessen et al
a. Hessen, “Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s Principia”
b. Zilsel, “Sociological Roots of Science”
c. Suggested: Schaffer, “Newton on the Beach”
d. Suggested: Long, Artisan/Practicioners and the rise of the new sciences and Cormack, “Handwork and brainwork: Beyond the Zilsel Thesis”
4.
Hints of political epistemology in the sociology of science
a. Shapin, “History of Science and its Sociological Reconstructions”
b. Excerpts from Shapin and Schaffer, Leviathan and the Airpump
5.
Giorgi Kobakhidze on Bogdanov and Proletkult (guest talk)
a. Bogdanov, “Science and the Working Class”
6.
Marxism and philosophy of science
a. Extracts from Sheehan, Marxism and the Philosophy of Science
b. Extracts from Althusser, Fichant & Pêcheux on ideology
c. Suggested: Young, “Marxism and the history of science”
7.
Sascha Freyberg on ‘Marxist historical epistemology’: The idea and the tools of science (Damerow and Lefèvre) (guest talk)
a. Lefèvre, “Tools of science”
b. Damerow and Lefèvre, “Hegel and the World-Historical Unity of Science”
8.
Canguilhem as a paramarxist?
a. Canguilhem, “Milieu et Normes de l’homme au travail” and “La décadence de l’idée de progrès”
b. Prinz & Schmidgen, “Vitalist Marxism”
c. suggested: Wolfe, “Vitalist Marxism”
9.
Popper vs Adorno
a. Popper and Adorno on the logic of the social sciences
b. Frisby, “The Popper-Adorno Controversy”
10.
Habermas on science and human interests
a. Habermas, “Technology and Science as ‘Ideology,’”
b. Omodeo on Habermas in Political Epistemology
c. Suggested: Feenberg on Habermas and Marcuse
11.
Latour
a. Latour, “Why Has Critique Run out of Steam?”
b. Bloor, “Anti-Latour”
c. Henning, “The Politics of Nature, Left and Right”
d. Suggested: Wolfe, “Latour: matérialisme et agentivité“
12.
Foucault and Canguilhem
a. Foucault, “Life: Experience and Science”
b. Canguilhem, “The death of man” (on Foucault)
13.
Haraway, Harding and situated knowledge
a. Haraway, “Situated Knowledges”
b. Harding, “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology”
c. Suggested: Lloyd, “Objectivity and the Double Standard for Feminist Epistemologies.”
14.
Political Epistemology meets New Materialism
a. Excerpts from Barad and Bennett
b. Lemke and Lettow on New Materialism
c. Suggested: Wolfe, “Le parti pris des choses”
15.
Conclusions
a. Suggested: Lefèvre, Theory of Nature and Mode of Production

This year's readings comprise the following ones:

David Bloor, “Anti-Latour.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 30.1 (1999): 81–112 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0039368198000387
Aleksandr Bogdanov, “Science and the Working Class” (1918), Sciendo 13.1 (2021) https://doi.org/10.2478/csj-2021-0022
Georges Canguilhem, “Milieu et Normes de l’homme au travail (À propos d’un livre récent de Georges Friedmann).” Les Cahiers internationaux de sociologie 2.3 (1947): 120-136; reprinted in Canguilhem, Œuvres complètes, Vrin, IV, 291 306
--------, “La décadence de l’idée de progrès.” Revue de métaphysique et de morale, 92.4 (1987): 437-454 ; reprinted in Canguilhem, Œuvres complètes, Vrin, V, 1069-1093
--------, “The Object of the history of science” (1968), trans. Mary Tiles. In G. Gutting, ed. Continental philosophy of science (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 198-206
--------, “The death of man, or exhaustion of the cogito?” (1967). In G. Gutting, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Foucault (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Second edition 2005, 74-94
Peter Damerow and Wolfgang Lefèvre, “Tools of Science.” In Damerow, Abstraction and Representation. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 175. (Dordrecht: Springer, 1996), 395-404 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8624-5_12
---------, “Hegel and the World-Historical Unity of Science.” Marxism & Sciences 8 (2026): 279-290. https://doi.org/10.56063/MS.0103.08109
Michel Foucault, “Life: Experience and Science” (1985; original French here), pref. to Canguilhem, The Normal and the Pathological, trans. C. Fawcett & R.S. Cohen (New York: Zone Books, 1989), 7-24
David Frisby, “The Popper-Adorno Controversy. The Methodological Dispute in German Sociology.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 2 (1972), 105-119 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/004839317200200108
Jürgen Habermas, “Technology and Science as ‘Ideology’.” In Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science, and Politics, trans. Jeremy J. Shapiro (Boston: Beacon Press, 1970), 81–122
Donna Haraway, “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14.3 (1988): 575-599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
Sandra Harding, “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What Is ‘Strong Objectivity?’” The Centennial Review 36.3 (1992): 437–470. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23739232
Boris Hessen, “The Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s Principia” (1931), reprinted in G. Basalla (ed.), The Rise of Modern Science; new trans. in Gideon Freudenthal and Peter McLaughlin, eds., The Social and Economic Roots of the Scientific Revolution (Springer, 2009)
Bruno Latour, “Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern.” Critical Inquiry 30 (2004): 225-248 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/421123
Thomas Lemke, “Varieties of materialism.” BioSocieties, 10.4 (2015): 490-495. https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2015.41
Susanne Lettow, “Turning the turn: New materialism, historical materialism and critical theory.” Thesis Eleven, 140.1 (2017): 106-121 https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513616683853
Pamela Long, Artisan/Practicioners and the rise of the new sciences, 1400-1600 (Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 2011)
E. Mellyn, Review of David Gentilcore, Medical Charlatanism in Early Modern Italy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), published on H-Italy (August, 2009), URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=24158
Robert K. Merton, “Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth Century England.” Osiris, 4 (1938): 360-632 http://www.jstor.org/stable/301533
Pietro Daniel Omodeo, Political Epistemology: The Problem of Ideology in Science Studies (Dordrecht: Springer, 201

Oral examination on the sources and themes of the class.
The alternative of a written assignment might be considered.

oral

The instructor is responsible for ensuring the authenticity and originality of all examinations and coursework. In cases of suspected academic misconduct, an additional on-site assessment may be required during the exams, which may differ from the standard format.

Regarding the grading scale for the oral exam:
A. Scores in the range of 18-22 will be assigned for:
- Sufficient knowledge of the textbooks and related topics
- Limited ability to use data and form independent judgments
- Sufficient communication skills.

B. Scores in the range of 23-26 will be assigned for:
- Fair knowledge of the textbooks and related topics
- Fair ability to use data and form independent judgments
- Fair communication skills.

C. Scores in the range of 27-30 will be assigned for:
- Good or excellent knowledge of the textbooks and related topics
- Good or excellent ability to use data and form independent judgments
- Fully appropriate communication skills.

D. The “laude” will be awarded to students with excellent knowledge and comprehension of the textbooks and related topics.

The teaching will consist of:
• frontal teaching, in which the professor will introduce students to the topics of the course;
• and a dialogic seminar-like part, in which students will interact with their classmates and the professor on the basis of the texts they have been assigned and they have to read in preparation for the lessons.

Regarding the grading scale for the oral exam:
A. Scores in the range of 18-22 will be assigned for:
- Sufficient knowledge of the textbooks and related topics
- Limited ability to use data and form independent judgments
- Sufficient communication skills.

B. Scores in the range of 23-26 will be assigned for:
- Fair knowledge of the textbooks and related topics
- Fair ability to use data and form independent judgments
- Fair communication skills.

C. Scores in the range of 27-30 will be assigned for:
- Good or excellent knowledge of the textbooks and related topics
- Good or excellent ability to use data and form independent judgments
- Fully appropriate communication skills.

D. The “laude” will be awarded to students with excellent knowledge and comprehension of the textbooks and related topics.