Sociology of Scientific Knowledge is a relatively new addition to sociology, emerging only several decades ago in the late 1970’s, and focuses on the theories and methods of science. It is seen as a notable success within the fields of sociology and sociology of science. In its infancy, SSK was primarily a British academic endeavor. These days, it is studied and practiced all over the world, with heavy influences in Germany, Scandinavia, Israel, the Netherlands, France, Australia, and North America.
David Hess tells us that in science, a black box is any device for which the input and output are specified but the internal mechanisms are not. “Sometimes the study of this content is described as ‘opening a black box’” (Whitley 1972). Advocates of SSK have criticized the Institutional Sociology of Science of leaving a black box of content unopened, and examining only the exogenous, institutional aspects of science and technology. Traditionally, studying the content of science from a sociological perspective had been very controversial.
Hess tells us that one way to characterize this study of the content of science and technology is with constructivism. He succinctly boils down the term and designates it as any approach which attempts to trace the incidences which shape the content of science and technology. However Hess also notes that “one can analyze the social factors that influence the content of scientific knowledge or technological design and yet also conclude that the constraints of observations or efficacy (the real world) play an equal or greater shaping role in what eventually becomes the consensus.” To understand this idea further, we can look at the term “social constructivism.” In simple terms, these are studies which ...
... middle of paper ...
..., symmetry and impartiality. Collins argues that by studying scientific controversies one can determine how scientific knowledge is created, disseminated, and validated.
There are three main components of the EPOR: Interpretive flexibility where the results of scientific experiments can be interpreted in different ways. Closure mechanisms where debates in science are not closed strictly on the basis of evidence, as this evidence is contested, rather microsociological factors close debates. And the third component implies that microsociological factors can, in principle, be linked to macrosociological factors.
Works Cited
Collins, H.M. 1981 Introduction: Stages in the Empirical Programme of Relativism, Social Studies of Science pp. 3-10
Sismondo, S. 2004 An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies
Hess, D. 1997 Science Studies: An Advanced Introduction
However opposing theorists (Ponterotto, 2005) have highlighted that even though the broad groupings in the social sciences are not derived from paradigms present in the natural sciences, the individual sub-disciplines may still be underpinned by a paradigm or a research programme with similar rese...
(2) Williams, Bernard. "The Truth in Relativism." Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 75 (1975): 215-28. Web.
Wiebe E Bijker, T. P. (1987). The Social Construction of Technological Systems. London: The MIT Press.
Most scientists want to be able to share their data. Scientists are autonomous by nature. Begelman (1968) refutes an argument made by I. L. Horowitz who is a scientist that believes that the government is in “gross violations of the autonomous nature of science”. B...
Without theories, scientists’ experiments would yield no significance to the world. Theories are the core of the scientific community; therefore figuring out how to determine which theory prevails amongst the rest is an imperative matter. Kuhn was one of the many bold scientists to attempt to bring forth an explanation for why one theory is accepted over another, as well as the process of how this occurs, known as the Scientific Revolution. Kuhn chooses to refer to a theory as a ‘paradigm’, which encompasses a wide range of definitions such as “a way of doing science in a specific field”, “claims about the world”, “methods of fathering/analyzing data”, “habits of scientific thought and action”, and “a way of seeing the world and interacting with it” (Smith, pg.76). However in this case, we’ll narrow paradigm to have a similar definition to that of a ‘theory’, which is a system of ideas used to explain something; it can also be deemed a model for the scientific community to follow. Kuhn’s explanation of a Scientific Revolution brings to light one major problem—the problem of incommensurability.
Faris, Robert E.L., and William Form. The "Sociology" of the "Sociology" Britannica. The. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d., pp. 113-117.
“The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts” is about "integrated social constructivist approach towards the study of science and technology"(pg 399). The author's Pinch and Bijker discuss that even though it has been a practice to separate science and technology, but they are hugely connected because of this they might benefit from each other. The authors discuss about the three main parts of science and technology termed as "Sociology of science", "the science technology relationship" and the "technology studies".
The Web. https://sakai.luc.edu/access/content/group/PHIL_181_014_5296_1142/Readings/ROSS3.pdf>. The "Ethical Relativism" Ethical Relativism. Lander,. Web.
Dr. Michael Shermer is a Professor, Founder of skeptic magazine, and a distinguished and brilliant American science writer to say the least. In His book The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People he sets out to embark on the daunting task of convincing and informing the reader on sciences’ ability to drives the expansion of humanity and the growth of the moral sphere. Although such a broad and general topic could be hard to explain, Shermer does so in a way that is concise, easy to understand, and refreshing for the reader. This novel is riddled with scientific facts, data, and pictures to back up shermers claims about the history of science, humanity and how the two interact with one another.
Vary, David. "Brief history on the Scientific Revolution." New York Times 02 Feb. 1990: 12B
The issue shall discuss the various differences between science and other types of knowledge and discuss the argument whether the science can rely without the separate theories posted by non-scientific educational bodies. ...
Sociology has become very prevalent in our everyday lives. Almost anything that anyone can think of involves Sociology in some way. Since Sociology plays a big role in everyday life, even when some people might not know it, that leaves many wondering what exactly Sociology is. Where did it come from? How has it become what it is today? The main reasons for Sociology being around today are the questions that are being asked Sociology, along with other social sciences, help examine the world and figure out what it takes in order to make the world a better place.
In Martin Hollis and Steven Lukes editors Rationality and Relativism (Cambridge Press, 1982).
According to the article “is scientific progress inevitable?” can understand that advances in technology are in the order of nature and advances in technology are regular. This article may be expanded many ideas about the progress and development of technology. Technology must be progress, but the progress of scientific discovery may not be able to promote social development in a short time. Although the power source of social development is the advancement of technology, but technology discovery just a part of system and it is an integral part, but only "essential" conditions, rather than "full" condition. Anyway, the article has made the readers to
Hollis, M., & Lukes, S. (1982). Apparently Irrational Beliefs.Rationality and relativism (pp. 149-180). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.