| Revision as of 16:42, 7 August 2005 editNeilm (talk | contribs)735 editsm Add reference Latour (1987)← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:02, 12 September 2005 edit undoCarlHewitt (talk | contribs)5,700 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| The '''sociology of scientific knowledge''' (SSK) is a recognised school of loosely allied thinkers including ], ], ], ] and ]. These thinkers (mainly ] or ]) consider social influences on ]. It is argued by some of them that social factors may be as important as, or more important than, the ] or ] factors normally considered to be paramount, in deciding whether a ] is ] or not. | The '''sociology of scientific knowledge''' (SSK) is a recognised school of loosely allied thinkers including ], ], ], ] and ] whose work inspired the development of the ] of Bill Kornfeld and ]. These thinkers (mainly ] or ]) consider social influences on ]. It is argued by some of them that social factors may be as important as, or more important than, the ] or ] factors normally considered to be paramount, in deciding whether a ] is ] or not. | ||
| ==Programmes and schools== | ==Programmes and schools== | ||
Revision as of 08:02, 12 September 2005
The sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) is a recognised school of loosely allied thinkers including Gaston Bachelard, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Bruno Latour and David Bloor whose work inspired the development of the Scientific Community Metaphor of Bill Kornfeld and Carl Hewitt. These thinkers (mainly sociologists or philosophers) consider social influences on science. It is argued by some of them that social factors may be as important as, or more important than, the rational or empirical factors normally considered to be paramount, in deciding whether a theory is true or not.
Programmes and schools
David Bloor has contrasted the so-called weak programme (or 'program' — either spelling is used) which merely gives social explanations for erroneous beliefs, with what he called the strong programme, which considers sociological factors as influencing all beliefs.
The weak programme is more of a description of an approach than an organised movement. The term is applied to historians, sociologists and philosophers of science who merely cite sociological factors as being responsible for those beliefs that went wrong. Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, and (in some moods) Thomas Kuhn might be said to adhere to it.
The strong programme is particularly associated with the work of two groups: the Edinburgh School (David Bloor and his colleagues of the Science Studies Unit at the University of Edinburgh), and the Bath School (Harry Collins and others formerly from the Science Studies Unit at the University of Bath). Bruno Latour is also sometimes considered to be part of this movement. In addition discourse analysis (associated with Michael Mulkay at the University of York) and reflexivity (associated with Malcolm Ashmore at Loughborough University) are often taken to be major strands of the programme. The strong programme is sometimes labeled as social constructivist, especially due to the works of authors such as Latour, but Bloor in his article 'Anti-Latour' claims that even the strong programme is not necessarily committed to a form of Anti-realism, responding that in his view the non-social nature, too, plays a central role in belief formation.
Sokal affair
Sociology of scientific knowledge became controversial in the 1990s after the publication of a hoax paper by Alan Sokal in the journal Social Text, under the title Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. The ensuing debate (the Sokal affair) led to SSK thinkers being accused of relativism.
See also
- Sociology of knowledge
- Science and technology studies
- Social constructionism
- Consensus science
- Historiography of science
Some classic sources for SSK:
- Collins, H.M. (1975) The seven sexes: A study in the sociology of a phenomenon, or the replication of experiments in physics, Sociology, 9, 205-24.
- Collins, H.M. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.
- Edwards, D., Ashmore, M. & Potter, J. (1995). Death and furniture: The rhetoric, politics, and theology of bottom line arguments against relativism. History of the Human Sciences, 8, 25-49.
- Gilbert, G. N. & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. 2nd Edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Latour, B. (1987). Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Pickering, A. (1984) Constructing Quarks: A sociological history of particle physics. Chicago; University of Chicago Press.
- Shapin, S. & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
For a recent sourcebook see:
- Jasanoff, S. Markle, G. Pinch T. & Petersen, J. (Eds)(2002), Handbook of science, technology and society, Rev Ed.. London: Sage.