Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Chelimsky Chelimsky (1991)
On the social science contribution to governmental decision‐makingScience, 254
J. Molnar, C. Jolly (1988)
Technology transfer: Institutions, models, and impacts on agriculture and rural life in the developing worldAgriculture and Human Values, 5
Molnar Molnar, Jolly Jolly (1988)
Technology transfer: institutions, models, and impacts on agriculture and rural lifeAgriculture and Human Values, 5
J. Molnar, H. Kinnucan, U. Hatch (1987)
Anticipating the impacts of biotechnology on agriculture: a review and synthesis
Kloppenburg Kloppenburg (1991)
Social theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science: local knowledge for an alternative agricultureRural Sociology, 56
Joseph J. Molnar, Patricia A. Duffy, Keith A. Cummins, * and Edsard Van Santen ** Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology *Department of Animol Science **Department of Agronomy and Soils, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849-5406 There is only one science. Other ways of knowing and sharing information may be arguably superior in some contexts, but they are not science. Science is a way of accumulating knowledge in intersubjectively testable ways. It can be misused or distorted, but these are human and institutional foibles, not problems inherent in the practice of science (National Science Foundation 1981). Science is under attack because it is sometimes cruel to animals, it can be used to create weapons of unthinkable destruction, and it often neglects the interests of women and the less privileged. These are accurate charges but they reflect the limits of society, particularly the limits of institutions which sponsor and support scientists. They are limits endemic to all human enterprise, and not to science alone. The practice of science in agricultural disciplines is not different from other avenues of human inquiry. Agricultural sciences hold many methods in common with other disciplines-such as hypotheses, the experiment, and
Rural Sociology – Wiley
Published: Mar 1, 1992
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.