Week 7 Chapter 5 “The sociology of Scientific knowledge”
Traditional philosophy of science used idea’s from logical positivism (i.e. logic, inference and á priori
assumptions) to explain science. This is a “prescriptive” method of judgement of rationality, with no
further method for discovery or so (Reichenbach chapter1).
The Sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) refers to the manner in which sociology as a modern
social science has been used to explain science. This holds that knowledge is bound to certain
theories in the subject, accepted by scientist accordingly to their interests. This means that the
acceptance of a scientific theory is more so caused by its compatibility with social interests than its
success of explanation. Furthermore there is no “right” reasoning as this is dependent on a scientists
beliefs and these differ per scientist. SSK reflects Kuhn’s (chapter 4) influence on scientific paradigms:
Scientists work in framework that sub-continuously make them make assumptions, so that
they are not fully aware that they are holding certain beliefs pre-emptively.
Scientists tend to hold on to these assumptions if these where the pre dominant influence in
the social structure in which they learned.
There are two main SSK approaches:
The Edinburgh School Strong Programme makes the assertion that all scientific knowledge is socially
constructed. This follows the naturalistic approach to scientific knowledge, this follows four main
principles:
Causality, focus on the causal conditions of scientists beliefs.
Impartiality, between true and false beliefs (unbiased) – no one true knowledge base.
Symmetry, one causality explains both true and false beliefs.
Reflexivity, explanations direct back to SSK, SSK is subject to the same principles
The laboratory approach (micro sociological) which emphasizes the daily practices of scientists in
their laboratories influence on knowledge. This is also called the naïve approach as it does not take
bias to certain procedures in laboratory practices into account. This approach thus emphasizes that
research is not only bound by technology levels, but also by surroundings.
Social constructivism is the idea that scientists create knowledge in the course of their work through
social structure and mechanism, rather than discovering it in an experimental process. Idea’s in this
framework: Relativism: truth is subjective to changing worldly contexts (Edinburgh strong view).
Often called the interest thesis. Knowledge is a constant tug of war between social conflicts.
Relativism is in stark contrast to logical positivism (i.e. Popper and Lakatos). Criticism to relativism is
that it is a self-defeating view. It sees itself as the true view, meaning that it must be objectively true,
which contradicts its own notions. Thus violating the reflexivity principle mentioning earlier. Realism
is the view that things are the way that they are, science is a journey in which increasing amounts of
discoveries are done – creating an increasingly realistic picture of the world. Core is that this is al
independent of human views. SSK places doubt on this realism by addressing the method in which
scientific discovery is carried out. Indeed SSK brings in doubt the very reason that scientists are held
in high regard, their capacity to overcome social and historical contexts in pursuit of real truths. What
SSK does, just as with other views, incorporates this view in the competing framework of views, in a
value-neutral setting as possible. SSK has a purely descriptive nature.
Traditional philosophy of science used idea’s from logical positivism (i.e. logic, inference and á priori
assumptions) to explain science. This is a “prescriptive” method of judgement of rationality, with no
further method for discovery or so (Reichenbach chapter1).
The Sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) refers to the manner in which sociology as a modern
social science has been used to explain science. This holds that knowledge is bound to certain
theories in the subject, accepted by scientist accordingly to their interests. This means that the
acceptance of a scientific theory is more so caused by its compatibility with social interests than its
success of explanation. Furthermore there is no “right” reasoning as this is dependent on a scientists
beliefs and these differ per scientist. SSK reflects Kuhn’s (chapter 4) influence on scientific paradigms:
Scientists work in framework that sub-continuously make them make assumptions, so that
they are not fully aware that they are holding certain beliefs pre-emptively.
Scientists tend to hold on to these assumptions if these where the pre dominant influence in
the social structure in which they learned.
There are two main SSK approaches:
The Edinburgh School Strong Programme makes the assertion that all scientific knowledge is socially
constructed. This follows the naturalistic approach to scientific knowledge, this follows four main
principles:
Causality, focus on the causal conditions of scientists beliefs.
Impartiality, between true and false beliefs (unbiased) – no one true knowledge base.
Symmetry, one causality explains both true and false beliefs.
Reflexivity, explanations direct back to SSK, SSK is subject to the same principles
The laboratory approach (micro sociological) which emphasizes the daily practices of scientists in
their laboratories influence on knowledge. This is also called the naïve approach as it does not take
bias to certain procedures in laboratory practices into account. This approach thus emphasizes that
research is not only bound by technology levels, but also by surroundings.
Social constructivism is the idea that scientists create knowledge in the course of their work through
social structure and mechanism, rather than discovering it in an experimental process. Idea’s in this
framework: Relativism: truth is subjective to changing worldly contexts (Edinburgh strong view).
Often called the interest thesis. Knowledge is a constant tug of war between social conflicts.
Relativism is in stark contrast to logical positivism (i.e. Popper and Lakatos). Criticism to relativism is
that it is a self-defeating view. It sees itself as the true view, meaning that it must be objectively true,
which contradicts its own notions. Thus violating the reflexivity principle mentioning earlier. Realism
is the view that things are the way that they are, science is a journey in which increasing amounts of
discoveries are done – creating an increasingly realistic picture of the world. Core is that this is al
independent of human views. SSK places doubt on this realism by addressing the method in which
scientific discovery is carried out. Indeed SSK brings in doubt the very reason that scientists are held
in high regard, their capacity to overcome social and historical contexts in pursuit of real truths. What
SSK does, just as with other views, incorporates this view in the competing framework of views, in a
value-neutral setting as possible. SSK has a purely descriptive nature.
