Article title: Conceptualizing Scientific Progress Needs a New Humanism
Authors: Ilya Т. Kasavin
Journal: Social Epistemology
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2021.2004468
When the above article was published online there were typographical amendments, missing text and unlisted references that were not corrected in production.
1. On page 5 second paragraph, the following sentence was written incorrectly: “This risky behavior seems to be characteristic of ‘revolutionary’ scientists, who consistently display an openness to ‘crazy theories’, for example, Niels Bohr or to paradigm shifts in science.”
The correct sentence should be: “This risky behavior seems to be characteristic of ‘revolutionary’ scientists, who consistently display an openness to ‘crazy theories’, for example, Niels Bohr.”
2. On page 11 second paragraph, a word was deleted in the following sentence: “Thus, foresight inspires the third account of progress, which Paul Feyerabend calls (Feyerabend [1975] 1988).”
The missing word is “proliferation”. The sentence should read: “Thus, foresight inspires the third account of progress, which Paul Feyerabend calls ‘proliferation’ (Feyerabend [1975] 1988).”
3. The following references were cited in text but not included in the reference list. These references are now included in the paper:
Bishop P., Hines, A., 2012. Teaching about the Future. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Feyerabend, P. [1975] 1988. Against Method. London; New York: Verso.
Kuhn, Th. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd edition. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lyotard, J.-F. [1979] 1984. The Postmodern Condition. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
These errors are now corrected in the online version of the article.