Economics plays a significant role in decision-making in contemporary western societies, but its role is increasingly questioned. A recurring topic among the challenges raised by critics is that economics as a discipline lacks sufficient pluralism. That is, it fails to enable, encourage, and respect the use of different ontologies, methodologies, theories, and/or schools of thought to study economic reality. Has this been a productive critique? Does talk about pluralism help identify genuine problems in the discipline? Pluralism in economics could draw support from the current consensus in philosophy that pluralism in science is a good thing. I argue, however, that the claim that economic research is insufficiently pluralist is unlikely to convince economists who believe economics is already pluralist enough and that it does not offer unambiguous recommendations for change. This is because there are too many legitimate ways to interpret how pluralism maps to practice. There are numerous variables that pluralist ideals might focus on-the things that they seek multiple rather than one of-and different interpretations of how many of those variables economics has in practice. Yet, as I go on to argue, this does not mean that talk of pluralism is entirely beside the point, since the reasons pluralists offer for their ideals do help to identify genuine problems in economics. The social epistemic strategies that arguments for pluralism recommend point us to three concrete issues in the way economic research is organised: gender imbalances, a steep internal hierarchy, and a dismissive attitude to outsiders. I show that economic research could be more progressive, representative of the interests of those in society, accepted, and legitimate and less likely to fall into bias if the discipline alleviated its gender imbalances, if it were less hierarchical, and if it had a healthier relationship with outsiders. In chapter 1, I outline the debate about pluralism in economics and explain how my thesis utilises a novel approach to social epistemology to offer a way out of the impasse in which that the debate presently resides. In chapter 2, I explain the different philosophical arguments for pluralism in science and categorise them using the variables they focus on and the reasons they give for pluralism. In chapter 3, I argue that interpreting pluralism as a particular arrangement of variables for economics to attain does not lead to unambiguous recommendations for change because it leaves too much open. Yet, I go on to argue, in chapter 4, that drawing on the reasons for pluralism can provide a set of heuristics for piecemeal evaluations of the social epistemic practices in economics. In chapters 5, 6, and 7, I apply these heuristics to economics. I provide evidence that [a] women are outnumbered in economics and face an adverse environment in the discipline, that [b] economics is steeply hierarchical, and that [c] economists form an in-group that assumes superiority and frequently dismisses outside voices. I argue that these three features of economic research block avenues for productive forms of feedback (mechanisms that help to challenge, justify, and refine scientific knowledge), block the interests of certain perspectives being heard, and block public scrutiny of the decisions made by economists.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-03-15T19:34:42Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Maria Rosalia Pinfildi Gomes.pdf: 2013981 bytes, checksum: 87e09ff40b78b1c122ecd2fd1bc70789 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009-01-23 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / One frequently resorts to science to legitimize the primacy attributed to Biotechnology and to the privileged protection granted to the rights of intellectual property that are conferred on it. Therewith, there is a tendency to accept, as a presupposition, that the future must and will be shaped by the biotechnological advances. Therefore, any criticism to the development of new technologies seems to constitute an opposition to the unfolding of the future and to science itself. In this dissertation we intend to inquire what values inform science, since it sets the course of this development, remaining for the global economy the role of providing the structures to its effective implementation. There seems to be a race towards the legitimization, founded on the authority and prestige of science, of the development and use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs); science, however, does not authorize such legitimization. On the contrary, the Genetically Modified Organisms which promise an agricultural revolution bear the mark of the political economy of globalization, given that its development has been taken as an objective of the global neoliberal economy, as well as a means of strengthening its structures. / Freqüentemente recorre-se à ciência para legitimar a prioridade atribuída à Biotecnologia e à proteção privilegiada concedida aos direitos de propriedade intelectual que lhe são conferidos. Com isso há uma tendência a aceitar, como pressuposto, que o futuro deverá ser, e será modelado pelos avanços biotecnológicos. Por isso, qualquer crítica ao desenvolvimento de novas tecnologias parece constituir uma oposição ao desdobrar do futuro e à própria ciência. Na presente dissertação pretende-se questionar que valores informam a ciência, já que é ela que define a rota, restando à economia global fornecer as estruturas para sua efetiva implementação. Parece estar ocorrendo uma corrida visando à legitimação do desenvolvimento e emprego de Organismos Geneticamente Modificados (OGMs) na autoridade e prestígio da ciência, contudo, a ciência não autoriza tal legitimação. Ao contrário, os Organismos Geneticamente Modificados que prometem uma revolução agrícola -, trazem a marca da economia política da globalização, haja vista que seu desenvolvimento tem sido tomado, como um objetivo da economia neoliberal global, bem como um meio de fortalecer suas estruturas.

The research focuses on the epistemic tension between Western positivist epistemology and African indigenous knowledge systems particularly Shona proverbs. The research argues that Western epistemological hegemony is both unjustified and unacceptable in the context of the pluriversal understanding of knowledge where systems of knowledge are both multiple and diverse. After a critique of Eurocentric thinking, the research defends an African epistemological paradigm that emerges as an alternative framework for the authentic and legitimate study of African knowledge systems and ways of knowing. The approach opens intellectual space for the philosophical study of Shona proverbs. Under Shona environmental philosophy, it shall be argued that ubuntu respects all aspects of the environment, recognizes the dependence of human beings on the environment, sees the land as sacred and affords responsibility for future generations by encouraging the preservation and conservation of resources. Three Shona proverbs have been used to show how the Shona think about preservation of natural resources, conservation of natural resources and the interdependence between humanity and the natural world. In the context of Shona philosophy of law, it is argued that ubuntu provides the basis of a coherent philosophy of law among the Shona. Shona philosophy of law is a reflection of legal elements and the study draws these elements from selected proverbs. These proverbs have been used to show the metaphysical basis of Shona legal philosophy, the role of the law in protecting the dignity of individuals and the importance of the law in peace building within the community. Concerning political philosophy, the study has argued that ubuntu is the political foundation of solidarity, oneness and mutual support in politics. Shona political philosophy stresses coexistence and relatedness (ukama) within the community. Shona political philosophy maintains that authority should be guided by respect, good governance, solidarity and peace. Under Shona philosophy of economics, themes of human dignity, respect for hard work and the need for moderation in the desire for money are discussed in the context of the Shona philosophical worldview. The proverbs under study contribute to alternative ways of philosophical reflection in the context of the pluriversality of knowledge / Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology / D.Litt et Phil. (Philosophy)