Imperialism, progress, developmental teleology, and interdisciplinary unification

Stephen Clarke, Adrian Walsh

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    5 Citations (Scopus)


    In a previous article in this journal, we examined John Dupré's claim that scientific imperialism can lead to misguided science being considered acceptable. Here, we address criticisms raised by Ian J. Kidd and Uskali Mäki against that article. While both commentators take us to be offering our own account of scientific imperialism that goes beyond that developed by Dupré, and go on to criticise what they take to be our account, our actual ambitions were modest. We intended to explicate the sense in which the term is used by Dupré and to identify the normative content of his critique of scientific imperialism. We made no claim to have developed our own account of scientific imperialism that went further than what was implicit in Dupré's work already. However, that said, the discussions presented by both Kidd and Mäki raise important general issues about how the idea of scientific imperialism should be understood and framed. Here, we offer our considered responses to Kidd's and Maki's discussions of scientific imperialism.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)341-351
    Number of pages11
    JournalInternational Studies in the Philosophy of Science
    Issue number3
    Publication statusPublished - Sep 2013

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Imperialism, progress, developmental teleology, and interdisciplinary unification'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this