’24-‘25
Sociology of science
and knowledge
UAntwerpen
Hanne Van der Heyden
Master sociologie
,Class 1: Introduction
1.1 Learning objectives and materials: see ppt’s
1.2 The interwovenness of science, technology and society
Introduction
• British parliament approves genetic interference: three parents of one child
o Social facts only exist because they have a social base
• Russian scientists grow plants from the Ice Age
o How often future visions are used to fund research, because it creates excitement among policy
makers. These expectations are reformative. This is example, on how social things matter: how social
expectations about the future have an impact on social life.
"Russian scientists have succeeded in making seeds from the Ice Age germinate into a plant. The seeds were
more than thirty thousand years old and had been preserved by the cold of the permafrost in Siberia. The
Siberian permafrost is an ideal natural depository for ancient life forms. The experiment published in the
American scientific journal 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences' may be the beginning of the
rebirth of several lost species. (…) One of the authors of the article, Stanislav Goebin, claimed that the
pioneering research makes it possible to revive ice age mammals. (...) " (De Standaard, 21 February 2012)
• More mobile phones than people
o More telephones than people on our planet
o New possibilities – new risks
Life in a technological culture
(1)It impacts how we talk, all the things you see are part of a network.
• These examples illustrate that our lives get increasingly intertwined with technology
o Move eg. in your mind with your car to the seventeenth century?
• Technology as ‘the new social bond’
• From social capital to some sort of techno-social capital
• Bruno Latour: technology not only connects people -> technological objects interfere
(2) Nature is damaged is destroyed by people and technology, this is an interesting evolution.
• In the contemporary world, culture and technology become difficult to disentangle.
o For example -> electricity networks: transport, the traffic of money, the provision of food, law
enforcement, etc.
• This illustrates that, anno 2023, technology can be considered as our natural habitat on which we depend,
whereas nature is increasinlgy made, protected and cultivated by people and technologies
The end of nature?
• Technology became our natural habitat. This author talks about the end of nature (meaning several things).
Nature doesn’t exists separately from humans. The evolution of society's has almost be connected to science
and technology.
• The end of nature is that the evolution of societies is always been connected to technology.
“When I say that we have ended nature, I don’t mean, obviously that natural processes have ceased – there is still
sunshine and still wind, still growth, still decay. Photosynthesis continues, as does respiration. But we have ended
the thing that has, at least in modern times, defined nature for us – its separation from human society”
, “We have changed the atmosphere, and thus we are changing the weather. By changing the weather, we make
every spot on earth man made and artificial” (Bill Mc Kibben)
The co-production of science and knowledge and technology
But social phenomena also triggered evolution
• Time and time again, society has changed in accordance with (co-evolution) new knowledge and technical
improvements.
o For example. The agricultural revolution
• War and trade are co-produced with developments in technology:
• For example. -> bigger and stronger siege weapons
o Trade requires resources to navigate:
o Sextant, compass and binoculars
o Speed and capacity of vessels increases -> shipping & emerging world economic system
o Cannonry, better shipping, and navigation made global colonization possible
, 1.3 The development of science as a separate scientific
institution
What we consider to be science and scientific is not a constant, this changes over time as well (main argument for
this part of class) → it is not only about the evolution of science but also what we define and see as science
The development of science
• ARISTOTELES: divided the universe in 2 parts (ondermaats en bovenmaats). His view on
how the universe works, he is known for the idea that the earth is at the century of the
universe. The sun, the moon, turns around the earth in circles (geocentrism). The
assumption is that there is a certain order in the universe. De upermoon space (heavenly
space), has an impact, on the impact underneath the moon. From the times of Aristoteles and until the
middle ages, this remained the dominant view of the world. This started to change in the 16th century.
• 1543: PUBLICATION OF VESALIUS’ About the anatomy of the human body
→Two works were published, that later became very popular. Vesalius is known as the founding father of
anatomy. He started to dissect animals, and later on humans. And based on these type of autopsies.
o First one: book by Vesalius → young doctor and reacted against previous teaching in medicine. He
was against the idea that the human body consist as different fluence, and when there is a
imbalance, they would become sick.
o Second one: Work of Copernicus: about the revolutions of the heavenly spirits.
• 1543: PUBLICATION OF COPERNICUS' About the revolutions of the heavenly spheres
o The second book in the same year was published by Copernicus. He was a doctor and he thought
that the earth rotates around the sun. Het is not the earth that is the central point, but it is the sun.
This is called heliocentrism.
The scientific revolution (16th – 17th century)
This is quite provocative for this time. When uncertainty rises, scientists will set up experiments and they need new
technology, new instruments, new observation tools (F.e.: the microscope, a telescope). That’s why the change
towards heliocentrism is important. Although the people were skeptical, it triggered scientist for a need to
experiment, which led to new technology.
Around that time, scientist were reacting against religious doctrines. The focus now is increased to observation and
empiricism (no longer a lot of religious stuff) → In this context reference is made to another
famous thinker, Galileo Galilei.
• Initial reactions towards the findings by Vesalius and Copernicus = skeptical.
• However, 16th century = uncertainties and doubts were created.
=> experiments; new observation tools were developed
• Non-hierarchical character of knowledge: to be valid knowledge was no longer assessed against (religious)
doctrines
• Disappearance of a religious, teleological worldview; focus shifted to observation and empiricism
• Introduction of new detection methods (e.g. a telescope) and procedures (e.g. the experimental method
The steady spread of science (18th century)
Although they became detached from religion, they became attached to sovereign. They managed to free
themselves from religion, they were still dependent on the state. Later on, science became more independent, but
the problem was that a limited number of scientists were united in these learn societies and then people get
suspicious. But still people were increased by interest in science. Because of the critics, scientist slowly started up to
society, but just the upper-class.
• Until ca. 1800 scientists often stood in a personal patronage relationship to a sovereign.
Sociology of science
and knowledge
UAntwerpen
Hanne Van der Heyden
Master sociologie
,Class 1: Introduction
1.1 Learning objectives and materials: see ppt’s
1.2 The interwovenness of science, technology and society
Introduction
• British parliament approves genetic interference: three parents of one child
o Social facts only exist because they have a social base
• Russian scientists grow plants from the Ice Age
o How often future visions are used to fund research, because it creates excitement among policy
makers. These expectations are reformative. This is example, on how social things matter: how social
expectations about the future have an impact on social life.
"Russian scientists have succeeded in making seeds from the Ice Age germinate into a plant. The seeds were
more than thirty thousand years old and had been preserved by the cold of the permafrost in Siberia. The
Siberian permafrost is an ideal natural depository for ancient life forms. The experiment published in the
American scientific journal 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences' may be the beginning of the
rebirth of several lost species. (…) One of the authors of the article, Stanislav Goebin, claimed that the
pioneering research makes it possible to revive ice age mammals. (...) " (De Standaard, 21 February 2012)
• More mobile phones than people
o More telephones than people on our planet
o New possibilities – new risks
Life in a technological culture
(1)It impacts how we talk, all the things you see are part of a network.
• These examples illustrate that our lives get increasingly intertwined with technology
o Move eg. in your mind with your car to the seventeenth century?
• Technology as ‘the new social bond’
• From social capital to some sort of techno-social capital
• Bruno Latour: technology not only connects people -> technological objects interfere
(2) Nature is damaged is destroyed by people and technology, this is an interesting evolution.
• In the contemporary world, culture and technology become difficult to disentangle.
o For example -> electricity networks: transport, the traffic of money, the provision of food, law
enforcement, etc.
• This illustrates that, anno 2023, technology can be considered as our natural habitat on which we depend,
whereas nature is increasinlgy made, protected and cultivated by people and technologies
The end of nature?
• Technology became our natural habitat. This author talks about the end of nature (meaning several things).
Nature doesn’t exists separately from humans. The evolution of society's has almost be connected to science
and technology.
• The end of nature is that the evolution of societies is always been connected to technology.
“When I say that we have ended nature, I don’t mean, obviously that natural processes have ceased – there is still
sunshine and still wind, still growth, still decay. Photosynthesis continues, as does respiration. But we have ended
the thing that has, at least in modern times, defined nature for us – its separation from human society”
, “We have changed the atmosphere, and thus we are changing the weather. By changing the weather, we make
every spot on earth man made and artificial” (Bill Mc Kibben)
The co-production of science and knowledge and technology
But social phenomena also triggered evolution
• Time and time again, society has changed in accordance with (co-evolution) new knowledge and technical
improvements.
o For example. The agricultural revolution
• War and trade are co-produced with developments in technology:
• For example. -> bigger and stronger siege weapons
o Trade requires resources to navigate:
o Sextant, compass and binoculars
o Speed and capacity of vessels increases -> shipping & emerging world economic system
o Cannonry, better shipping, and navigation made global colonization possible
, 1.3 The development of science as a separate scientific
institution
What we consider to be science and scientific is not a constant, this changes over time as well (main argument for
this part of class) → it is not only about the evolution of science but also what we define and see as science
The development of science
• ARISTOTELES: divided the universe in 2 parts (ondermaats en bovenmaats). His view on
how the universe works, he is known for the idea that the earth is at the century of the
universe. The sun, the moon, turns around the earth in circles (geocentrism). The
assumption is that there is a certain order in the universe. De upermoon space (heavenly
space), has an impact, on the impact underneath the moon. From the times of Aristoteles and until the
middle ages, this remained the dominant view of the world. This started to change in the 16th century.
• 1543: PUBLICATION OF VESALIUS’ About the anatomy of the human body
→Two works were published, that later became very popular. Vesalius is known as the founding father of
anatomy. He started to dissect animals, and later on humans. And based on these type of autopsies.
o First one: book by Vesalius → young doctor and reacted against previous teaching in medicine. He
was against the idea that the human body consist as different fluence, and when there is a
imbalance, they would become sick.
o Second one: Work of Copernicus: about the revolutions of the heavenly spirits.
• 1543: PUBLICATION OF COPERNICUS' About the revolutions of the heavenly spheres
o The second book in the same year was published by Copernicus. He was a doctor and he thought
that the earth rotates around the sun. Het is not the earth that is the central point, but it is the sun.
This is called heliocentrism.
The scientific revolution (16th – 17th century)
This is quite provocative for this time. When uncertainty rises, scientists will set up experiments and they need new
technology, new instruments, new observation tools (F.e.: the microscope, a telescope). That’s why the change
towards heliocentrism is important. Although the people were skeptical, it triggered scientist for a need to
experiment, which led to new technology.
Around that time, scientist were reacting against religious doctrines. The focus now is increased to observation and
empiricism (no longer a lot of religious stuff) → In this context reference is made to another
famous thinker, Galileo Galilei.
• Initial reactions towards the findings by Vesalius and Copernicus = skeptical.
• However, 16th century = uncertainties and doubts were created.
=> experiments; new observation tools were developed
• Non-hierarchical character of knowledge: to be valid knowledge was no longer assessed against (religious)
doctrines
• Disappearance of a religious, teleological worldview; focus shifted to observation and empiricism
• Introduction of new detection methods (e.g. a telescope) and procedures (e.g. the experimental method
The steady spread of science (18th century)
Although they became detached from religion, they became attached to sovereign. They managed to free
themselves from religion, they were still dependent on the state. Later on, science became more independent, but
the problem was that a limited number of scientists were united in these learn societies and then people get
suspicious. But still people were increased by interest in science. Because of the critics, scientist slowly started up to
society, but just the upper-class.
• Until ca. 1800 scientists often stood in a personal patronage relationship to a sovereign.
