View source for Philosophy:Sociology of scientific knowledge

{{short description|Study of science as a social activity}}
[[File:Cmglee Cambridge Science Festival 2014 balloons.jpg|alt=A hands-on activity at the 2014 Cambridge Science Festival, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Use of balloons to explore fundamental mathematics.|thumb|350x350px|A hands-on activity at the 2014 Cambridge Science Festival, Cambridge, {{wipe|United Kingdom}}. Use of balloons to explore fundamental [[Mathematics|mathematics]].]]
{{Sociology}}
{{Science|expanded=Society}}

The '''sociology of scientific knowledge''' ('''SSK''') is the study of [[Science|science]] as a social activity, especially dealing with "the social conditions and effects of science, and with the social structures and processes of scientific activity."<ref name=socofsci-bendavid>{{cite journal
|title = Sociology of Science
|first = Joseph 
|last = Ben-David
|author2=Teresa A. Sullivan 
 |journal = [[Social:Annual Review of Sociology|Annual Review of Sociology]]
|volume = 1
|issue = 1
|year =  1975
|pages = 203–222
|url = http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno%20Ben%20David%20&%20Sullivan%20Sociology%20of%20Science%20ARS%201975.htm
|access-date = 2006-11-29
|doi = 10.1146/annurev.so.01.080175.001223
}}</ref> The [[Philosophy:Sociology of scientific ignorance|sociology of scientific ignorance]] (SSI) is complementary to the sociology of scientific knowledge.<ref name=socofig-stocking>{{cite journal
|title = On Drawing Attention to Ignorance
|first = Holly 
|last = Stocking
|journal = Science Communication
|volume = 20
|issue = 1
|year =  1998
|pages = 165–178
|doi = 10.1177/1075547098020001019
|s2cid = 145791904 
}}</ref><ref name=socofig-wehling>{{cite journal
|title = Beyond knowledge? Scientific ignorance from a sociological point of view
|first = Peter 
|last = Wehling
|journal = {{ill|Zeitschrift für Soziologie|de}}
|volume = 30
|issue = 6
|year =  2001
|pages = 465–484
|url = http://zfs-online.org/index.php/zfs/article/viewFile/1091/628
|access-date = 2013-01-19
}}</ref> For comparison, the [[Social:Sociology of knowledge|sociology of knowledge]] studies the impact of human [[Philosophy:Knowledge|knowledge]] and the prevailing ideas on societies and relations between knowledge and the social context within which it arises.

[[Social:Sociologist|Sociologist]]s of scientific knowledge study the development of a scientific field and attempt to identify points of contingency or interpretative flexibility where ambiguities are present.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Baber|first=Zaheer|date=1992|editor-last=Ashmore|editor-first=Malcolm|editor2-last=Bhaskar|editor2-first=Roy|editor3-last=Mukerji|editor3-first=Chandra|editor4-last=Woolgar|editor4-first=Steve|editor5-last=Yearley|editor5-first=Steven|title=Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: Lost in the Reflexive Funhouse?|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/657625|journal=Theory and Society|volume=21|issue=1|pages=105–119|doi=10.1007/BF00993464 |jstor=657625 |s2cid=145211615 |issn=0304-2421}}</ref> Such variations may be linked to a variety of political, historical, cultural or economic factors. Crucially, the field does not set out to promote [[Relativism|relativism]] or to attack the scientific project; the objective of the researcher is to explain why one interpretation rather than another succeeds due to external social and historical circumstances.

The field emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s and at first was an almost exclusively British practice. Other early centers for the development of the field were in France, Germany, and the United States (notably at [[Organization:Cornell University|Cornell University]]).<ref>{{Cite web|title=Department of Sociology {{!}} Department of Sociology Cornell Arts & Sciences|url=https://sociology.cornell.edu/|access-date=2021-09-05|website=sociology.cornell.edu}}</ref> Major theorists include Barry Barnes, [[Biography:David Bloor|David Bloor]], [[Biography:Sal Restivo|Sal Restivo]], Randall Collins, [[Biography:Gaston Bachelard|Gaston Bachelard]], Harry Collins, Karin Knorr Cetina, [[Biography:Paul Feyerabend|Paul Feyerabend]], [[Biography:Steve Fuller (sociologist)|Steve Fuller]], [[Biography:Martin Kusch|Martin Kusch]], [[Biography:Bruno Latour|Bruno Latour]], Mike Mulkay, [[Biography:Derek J. de Solla Price|Derek J. de Solla Price]], Lucy Suchman and Anselm Strauss.

==Programmes and schools==
The sociology of scientific knowledge in its Anglophone versions emerged in the 1970s in self-conscious opposition to the sociology of science associated with the American [[Biography:Robert K. Merton|Robert K. Merton]], generally considered one of the seminal authors in the sociology of science.  Merton's was a kind of "sociology of scientists," which left the cognitive content of science out of sociological account; SSK by contrast aimed at providing sociological explanations of scientific ideas themselves, taking its lead from aspects of the work of [[Biography:Ludwik Fleck|Ludwik Fleck]],{{sfn|Fleck|1935}}{{sfn|Fleck|1979}} Thomas S. Kuhn,<ref>{{Citation|last=KUHN|first=THOMAS|title=The Structure of Scientific Revolutions|date=2021-06-08|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1jk0jrs.26|work=Philosophy after Darwin|pages=176–177|publisher=Princeton University Press|doi=10.2307/j.ctv1jk0jrs.26 |s2cid=236228428 |access-date=2021-09-05}}</ref> but especially from established traditions in cultural anthropology (Durkheim, Mauss) as well as the late Wittgenstein. [[Biography:David Bloor|David Bloor]], one of SSK's early champions, 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. [[Biography:Imre Lakatos|Imre Lakatos]] and (in some moods) Thomas S. Kuhn might be said to adhere to it.  The ''strong'' programme is particularly associated with the work of two groups: the ''''Edinburgh School'''' ([[Biography:David Bloor|David Bloor]], Barry Barnes, and their colleagues at the Science Studies Unit at the [[Organization:University of Edinburgh|University of Edinburgh]]) in the 1970s and '80s, and the ''''Bath School'''' (Harry Collins and others at the [[Organization:University of Bath|University of Bath]]) in the same period. "Edinburgh sociologists" and "Bath sociologists" promoted, respectively, the Strong Programme and Empirical Programme of Relativism (EPOR). Also associated with SSK in the 1980s was discourse analysis as applied to science (associated with Michael Mulkay at the University of York), as well as a concern with issues of reflexivity arising from paradoxes relating to SSK's relativist stance towards science and the status of its own knowledge-claims (Steve Woolgar, Malcolm Ashmore).<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Mulkay|first1=Michael|last2=Gilbert|first2=G. Nigel|date=1982|title=What is the Ultimate Question? Some Remarks in Defence of the Analysis of Scientific Discourse|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631282012002006|journal=Social Studies of Science|volume=12|issue=2|pages=309–319|doi=10.1177/030631282012002006|s2cid=144024114 |issn=0306-3127}}</ref>

The sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) has major international networks through its principal associations, 4S and EASST, with recently established groups in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Latin America. It has made major contributions in recent years to a critical analysis of the biosciences and informatics.

==The sociology of mathematical knowledge==
Studies of [[Philosophy:Mathematical practice|mathematical practice]] and [[Quasi-empiricism in mathematics|quasi-empiricism in mathematics]] are also rightly part of the sociology of knowledge since they focus on the community of those who practice [[Mathematics|mathematics]].  Since [[Biography:Eugene Wigner|Eugene Wigner]] raised the issue in 1960 and [[Biography:Hilary Putnam|Hilary Putnam]] made it more rigorous in 1975, the question of why fields such as [[Physics:Physics|physics]] and [[Mathematics|mathematics]] should agree so well has been debated. Proposed solutions point out that the fundamental constituents of mathematical thought, space, form-structure, and number-proportion are also the fundamental constituents of physics. It is also worthwhile to note that physics is more than merely modeling of reality and the objective basis is upon observational demonstration. Another approach is to suggest that there is no deep problem, that the division of human scientific thinking through using words such as 'mathematics' and 'physics' is only useful in their practical everyday function to categorize and distinguish.

Fundamental contributions to the sociology of mathematical knowledge have been made by [[Biography:Sal Restivo|Sal Restivo]] and [[Biography:David Bloor|David Bloor]]. Restivo draws upon the work of scholars such as [[Biography:Oswald Spengler|Oswald Spengler]] (''[[Social:The Decline of the West|The Decline of the West]]'', 1918), [[Biography:Raymond Louis Wilder|Raymond Louis Wilder]]<ref>Raymond Wilder (1981) ''Mathematics as a Cultural System''. {{ISBN|0-08-025796-8}}</ref> and Leslie Alvin White, as well as contemporary sociologists of knowledge and science studies scholars. David Bloor draws upon [[Biography:Ludwig Wittgenstein|Ludwig Wittgenstein]] and other contemporary thinkers. They both claim that mathematical knowledge is socially constructed and has irreducible contingent and historical factors woven into it. More recently [[Biography:Paul Ernest|Paul Ernest]] has proposed a social constructivist account of mathematical knowledge, drawing on the works of both of these sociologists.

==Criticism==
SSK has received criticism from theorists of the actor-network theory (ANT) school of [[Engineering:Science and technology studies|science and technology studies]]. These theorists criticise SSK for sociological [[Philosophy:Reductionism|reductionism]] and a [[Philosophy:Anthropocentrism|human centered]] universe. SSK, they say, relies too heavily on human actors and social rules and conventions settling scientific controversies. The debate is discussed in an article titled ''Epistemological Chicken''.<ref>Collins, H. M. and S. Yearley (1992). "Epistemological Chicken". In A. Pickering (Ed.) ''Science as Practice and Culture''. Chicago, Chicago University Press: 301-326. Referenced at [http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/centres/css/ant/ant-a.htm ANT resource list] University of Lancaster, with the summary "Argues against the generalised symmetry of actor-network, preferring in the interpretive sociology tradition to treat humans as ontologically distinct language carriers". Website accessed 8 February 2011.</ref>

==See also==
{{Columns-list|*  
* {{annotated link|Cliodynamics}}
* {{annotated link|Philosophy:Historiography of science}}
* {{annotated link|Philosophy:Paradigm shift}}
* {{annotated link|Philosophy:Philosophy of social science}}
* {{annotated link|Philosophy:Science studies}}
* {{annotated link|Engineering:Science and technology studies}}
* {{annotated link|Scientific community metaphor}}
* {{annotated link|Philosophy:Social constructionism}}
* {{annotated link|Social:Sociology of knowledge}}
* {{annotated link|Philosophy:Sociology of scientific ignorance}}
* {{annotated link|Philosophy:Sociology of the history of science}}
Disputes:
* {{annotated link|Physics:Bogdanov affair}}
* {{annotated link|Philosophy:Sokal affair}}
}}

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

==References==
* {{cite web |url=https://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/students/research-guide |title=Sociology of scientific knowledge – research guide |last=Kusch |first=Martin |date=1998 |access-date=February 23, 2012}}

==Further reading==
*{{cite web |url=http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html |title=The Bogdanoff Affair |last=Baez |first=John | date=2010}}
*Bloor, David (1976) ''Knowledge and social imagery''. London: Routledge.
*Bloor, David (1999) [https://reclus.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/bloor-anti-latour.pdf "Anti-Latour"]. ''Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A'' Volume 30, Issue 1, March 1999, Pages 81–112.
*Chu, Dominique (2013), ''The Science Myth---God, society, the self and what we will never know'', {{ISBN|1782790470}}
*Collins, H.M. (1975) ''[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/003803857500900202 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). ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=gPDHOo2IUbMC&dq=%22Changing+order%3A+Replication+and+induction+in+scientific+practice%22&pg=PA29 Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice]''. London: Sage.
*Collins, Harry and Steven Yearley. (1992). "Epistemological Chicken" in ''Science as Practice and Culture'',  A. Pickering (ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 301-326.
*Edwards, D., Ashmore, M. & Potter, J. (1995). [https://web.archive.org/web/20061109000435/http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssde/Death%20and%20furniture.pdf Death and furniture: The rhetoric, politics, and theology of bottom line arguments against relativism].  ''History of the Human Sciences'', 8, 25-49.
*{{Cite book|title=Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv|trans-title=Emergence and development of a scientific fact: Introduction to the study of thinking style and thinking collectives|last=Fleck|first=Ludwik|publisher=Schwabe |year=1935|location=Verlagsbuchhandlung, Basel|language=de}}
*{{Cite book|title=Genesis and development of a scientific fact|last=Fleck|first=Ludwik|publisher=University of Chicago Press|year=1979|location=Chicago, Illinois}}
*Gilbert, G. N. & Mulkay, M. (1984). ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=jS88AAAAIAAJ&dq=%22Opening+Pandora%27s+box%3A+A+sociological+analysis+of+scientists%27+discourse%22&pg=PR6 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. (not an SSK-book, but has a similar approach to science studies)
*Latour, B. (1987). ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=sC4bk4DZXTQC&dq=%22Science+in+action+%3A+how+to+follow+scientists+and+engineers+through+society%22&pg=PA19 Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society]''.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (not an SSK-book, but has a similar approach to science studies)
*Pickering, A. (1984). ''[https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1119/1.14594 Constructing Quarks: A sociological history of particle physics]''.  Chicago; University of Chicago Press.
*Schantz, Richard and Markus Seidel (2011). ''[http://www.degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/208994 The Problem of Relativism in the Sociology of (Scientific) Knowledge]''. Frankfurt: ontos.
*Shapin, S. & Schaffer, S. (1985).  ''Leviathan and the Air-Pump''.  Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
*Williams, R. & Edge, D. (1996). ''The Social Shaping of Technology''. Research Policy, vol. 25, pp.&nbsp;856–899 [https://web.archive.org/web/20090816034547/http://www.comunicazione.uniroma1.it/materiali/16.47.15_WilliamsEdge_1996_TheSocialShapingOfTechnology.pdf]
*Willard, Charles Arthur. (1996). ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=OU75AafuhvcC&dq=%22Liberalism+and+the+Problem+of+Knowledge%3A+A+New+Rhetoric+for+Modern+Democracy%22&pg=PP13 Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy]'', University of Chicago Press.
*Zuckerman, Harriet. (1988). "The sociology of science." In NJ Smelser (Ed.), Handbook of '''sociology''' (p.&nbsp;511–574). London: Sage.
*Jasanoff, S. Markle, G. Pinch T. & Petersen, J. (Eds)(2002), ''Handbook of science, technology and society'', Rev Ed.. London: Sage.

;Other relevant materials
*{{cite book|last=Becker|first=Ernest|title=The structure of evil; an essay on the unification of the science of man|url=https://archive.org/details/structureofevile00beckrich|url-access=registration|location=New York|publisher=G. Braziller|year=1968|}}
*{{cite journal | last=Shapin | first=Steven | title=Here and Everywhere: Sociology of Scientific Knowledge | journal=Annual Review of Sociology | publisher=Annual Reviews | volume=21 | year=1995 | pages=289–321 | doi=10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.001445 | s2cid=3395517 | url=https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3219885/DARK_shapin-Here_and_Everywhere_1995.pdf?sequence=1 }}
*[http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/how-to-think-about-science-part-1-24-1.2953274 Historical sociologist Simon Schaffer and Steven Shapin are interviewed on SSK]
*[http://www.sociologyofignorance.com The Sociology of Ignorance website featuring the sociology of scientific ignorance]

== External links ==
*{{PhilPapers|category|sociology-of-science|Sociology of Science}}

{{philosophy of science}}
{{Science and technology studies}}

[[Category:Social constructionism|Scientific knowledge]]
[[Category:Sociology of science]]

{{Sourceattribution|Sociology of scientific knowledge}}