|
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. 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
The SSK breaks down into two sub-schools or programmes/programs (either spelling is used). The weak program merely considers sociological factors to be important in scientific practice. The strong program considers sociological factors to be the decisive ones.
The weak program is more of a description of an approach than an organised movement. Subscribers are historians and philosophers of science who see sociological factors as important in science, but who do not see them as being the pre-eminent factor in whether a theory is accepted as being true or not. Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, and (in some moods) Thomas Kuhn might be said to adhere to it.
The strong program 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 considered by many 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 strong program.
Sokal affair
Sociology of scientific knowledge became controversial in the 1990s after the publication of a hoax paper by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont 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.
This is an odd accusation as relativism is one of the tenets of the strong program. Indeed, Harry Collins has characterised his work as a form of empirical relativism.
See also
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 Pandoras 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.
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.
| 
