Sociology Of Scientific Knowledge

Front 1

What is 'knowledge'?

Back 1

What is collectively endorsed by a group. (One person is just a belief). Thus all collectives possess knowledge, but there is tremendous variation between the bodies of knowledge

Front 2

The Strong Programme

Back 2

Provides a formal approach for dealing with the variation of bodies of knowledge. Developed by Bloor. Says that SSK should be causal, that is concerned with the conditions that bring about belief/states of knowledge. Impartial with respect to truth or falsity of that knowledge. Doesn't assume that scientific knowledge has a special status compared to other kinds of knowledge - scientific knowledge relates to but does not equate with reality

Front 3

Ostensive learning

Back 3

Learn from our forebears. e.g. point at an object and say 'duck' - relies on recognising similarities. Involved input from authority to tell us if we are right and from the material world. Eventually develop a system of categories and beliefs for classification, which may be modified if a contradiction occurs (e.g. platypus lays eggs).

Front 4

Finitism

Back 4

The problem with ostensive learning - only experience ostension a finite number of times but there are an indefinite number of similarities between objects - no guidance is offered about classifying the next, unsupervised instance

Front 5

What is an 'interest'?

Back 5

- Something that interests us
- Something that attracts our interests
- A share in a business venture
- The means to achieve one's goals

Front 6

Yearley's model of interest

Back 6

People come to develop beliefs which legitimate their interests e.g. fox hunters

Front 7

Pickering's case study of two different Quark theories

Back 7

Charm or colour - charm model intersected with and could be readily integrated into existing bodies of theoretical physics. Thus charm was taken up and came to be seen as real, although neither theory was actual proven to be correct

Front 8

Mackenzie's case study of Pearson and Yule

Back 8

Development of statistical theory esp. correlation.
Pearson: Eugenicist; developed coefficient for correlation of nominal variables which allowed him to study variables such as intelligence
Yule: Alternative method more suited to applications such as studying vaccination

Front 9

Barnes' view of interest

Back 9

Interest theory is a way of capturing more general, structural features that structure action of the individual and the take up of beliefs

Front 10

Observation

Back 10

Scientists use the term to mark what they want to find out in a particular theoretical context and with respect to existing bodies of knowledge. This creates a collective focus for experimentation and revision of knowledge

Front 11

Milikan's experiments

Back 11

Milikan reported the charge of an electron. Discounted some of his experiments - drew on his experimental experience, knew when run was wrong as it didn't conform to his expectations based on previous estimates. Used interpretation and selection of findings - local interpretative tradition

Front 12

Ehrenhaft's experiments

Back 12

Observed smaller electron charges than Milikan and said that all a physicist could do was report on the empirical distribution of results rather than interpret and disregard

Front 13

Tacit knowledge

Back 13

e.g. riding a bicycle. Difficult to transfer knowledge. e.g. TEA laser - originators didn't know how to tell people what they had done to make it work

Front 14

Collins' 'core-set'

Back 14

At transient hot-spots in science, there are normally only a small number of scientists who are directly involved in undertaking and evaluating the relevant experiments. The closer one gets to this core set, the greater the uncertainty about the correct experimental methodology - what counts as a good and bad experiment is unknown. Experiments therefore cannot settle controversies, only definitions of success - this is where social factors come in

Front 15

to disagree on, about

Back 15

اِخْتَلَفَ على
يختلف على
الاختلاف على

Front 16

How is the experimenter's regress broken?

Back 16

Calibration? Only introduces vertical regression (how do we know the calibration was correct? Add another calibration...)

Sometimes controversies peter out because they cease to occupy public imagination

Ascriptions of competence (e.g. cold fusion)

Front 17

Scientists' folk theory of discovery

Back 17

Not simply an event that happens to an individual. Achievement needs to be possible i.e. coherent with existing beliefs. Action needs to occur as part of research - self-awareness, otherwise accidental. Achievement needs to be unprecedented and valid

Front 18

Kuhn on discovery

Back 18

What is needed is a change of thinking as well as discovery. Discovery is not a process, it is an event

Front 19

Mendel's discovery

Back 19

Concerned with question of speciation and hybridisation. His work was revived in the context of a priority dispute, and its relevance changed. It also benefited from later research which gave a decisiveness to his observations. Weakness in Darwin's theory also important - Mendel provided mechanism. Thus Mendel was not rediscovered so much as reinterpreted/constructed

Front 20

Analine reds

Back 20

Legals case over whether certain red dyes were the same as previously painted fuchsine. It was acknowledged that there were differences in the dyes but they were chemically the same i.e. their impurities were making the difference. Social goals and interests structured the arguments made by different actors e.g. industrialists, their lawyers. Accounts given of world make more sense with respect to vested interests

Front 21

Actor-network theory

Back 21

Authors were dissatisfied with interest explanation - we are not always dealing with stable groups with well-defined interests. Interest explanation can be read as suggesting that actors are manipulated by invisible forces of interest. Instead, ANT focuses on how the interests are formed together with the groups

Front 22

Self-evidence

Back 22

The premise of a proof are generally required to be self-evident. The criteria of 'self-evident' are historically variable. SSK looks to the causes of this, and thus self-evidence becomes a sociological category. Self-evidence is thus not hard-wired or absolute - it is a convention

Front 23

Convention

Back 23

Occupy a third realm beside the subjective and the objective. Powerful but without reference to entities and standards - transcends empirical reality

Front 24

Scientific expertise interacting with other bodies of knowledge

Back 24

1. Non-experts possess their own bodies of knowledge/skill which may rival/complement expert conception of an issue

2. How non-experts evaluate an institution depends on the status accorded to that institution's knowledge

3. Technical/scientific account may make assumptions about the social world that may appear naive to non-experts

e.g. Cumbrian sheep farmers and fall-out from Chernobyl

Therefore, SSK cannot prescribe how non-experts should be involved in scientific enterprise