As known, “Philosophy of science it is argued that progress in gaining such knowledge has been achieved by the accumulation of what should be understood as “scientific” knowledge. I claim there are varying degrees of objectivity pertaining to various aspects of clinical medicine. Hence, what is often understood as constituting the “art” of medicine is amenable to objective methods of inquiry, and so, may be understood as ‘science’” ( Cunningham, 2015 , p. 1). However, in this chapter, in effect, in the whole book, we argue that the philosophy of science should be universal, humanistic and religiously, racially and regionally unbiased.
Published in Chapter:
Philosophy of Science and Rooted Reciprocity: The Interface
Copyright: © 2022
|Pages: 23
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-9602-9.ch001
Abstract
This chapter initiates the debates on the the philosophical foundations of reciprocity and briefly talks about how time and space have been necessary for the history of philosophy and science. This chapter shows that politics and other parts of political engagements were not very visible most of the time. As a surprise, we didn't know much about these connections between social sciences and the history and philosophy of science. Reciprocity-in-kind was an intentional tool to draw attention to assumed and unquestioned meaning. In these cases, there is a risk that the concept will be used as dogma, which will make it less vibrant and strong. Similarly, the term reciprocity can be used in so many ways that it loses its meaning and doesn't help a young researcher figure out what it means. For example, it can be used to describe things like civic engagement, giving back, respect, and so on.