Talk:Sociology of scientific knowledge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sociology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Science (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Systems (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.
 

Untitled[edit]

Please note: There is a sociology of knowledge page AND a sociology of scientific knowledge page: please attempt to keep these pages distinct. If that's not possible, maybe both should be merged, and 'science' included as a subcategory? --Tomsega (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sokal Affair[edit]

I'm not sure this is a fair example because Alan Sokal published his famous piece in an American journal called Social Text that didn't have much to do with SSK. Social text was more of a literary theory/cultural studies journal, but certainly not known for science studies. I suggest removing this section.--75.25.142.26 (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think it is relevant. Although the piece appeared in Social Text, the Sokal Affair has been used extensively to discredit the SSK folks, and many SSKers took it upon themselves to respond to the hoax. SnehaNar (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Alan Sokal wrote a follow up article in Lingua Franca called A physicist experiments with cultural studies, to explain his experiment in Social Text. I think this quote sums up his argument nicely: Social Text's acceptance of my article exemplifies the intellectual arrogance of Theory--postmodernist literary theory, that is--carried to its logical extreme.
Sokal attacked critic of science coming from the humanities - literary theory and cultural studies, not the study of science coming from the social sciences.--80.163.17.92 (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I am joining the two other editors who think that the Sokal affair does not relate directly to the SSK. However, Sokal was a critic of SSK and science more broadly. --Duncan (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

ANT theorists[edit]

I did make a few changes regarding whether the ANT theorists are to be included in the SSK-field. My view is that it should be kept separate since these theorists have diametrically different conceptions of ontology, and have also debated this widely. Instead I made a separate entry called "Criticism".

What about it? Christopher Kullenberg 20:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree - good correction. May I invite you to visit STS Wiki? This is a new site, very much in need of content development; it isn't intended to compete with, but rather to supplement, Wikipedia (guides to STS scholars, STS programs, etc.) Bryan 12:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirect page for Edinburgh School

Just to let you know I've changed this to a disambig page. HJMG 23:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed Bruno Latour from the list of SSKers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurubanks (talkcontribs) 00:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

SSK is Strong Programme: article needs reworking[edit]

In general STS use, if I am not mistaken, SSK is synonymous with the strong programme, or actually, these are part of the description of one approach, "Strong Programme in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge," that first emerged as the Edinburgh school.

SSK is not used generally to describe the field of sociology of science or STS. SSK is a subfield. Popper doesn't belong in this group. This article needs a rewrite, perhaps moving some material to the STS or other general science study page. Rubble 19:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

SSK and Sociology of Science[edit]

so far, i think both are so close that this article could be merged into sociology of science. do you disagree? capi 04:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

yes i disagree, ssk is closer to sociology of knowledge than sociology of science. it is separate from that too, significantly different in its focus. --Buridan 13:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

SSK and Sociology of Science are two different areas of the sociological study of science. SSK is generally a British phenomenon, while the Sociology of Science is an American phenomenon. They have different approaches to how to explain science sociologically. In the article there are several instances where a claim is made about SSK, and the reference given is actually about Sociology of Science. That is not right - one should use sources FROM the SSK camp of sociology to explain what the SSK is about. For example, Robert K. Merton did not practice sociology of scientific knowledge, he practiced sociology of science. I'm not an expert, I'm a student in Edinburgh who studies SSK. (source: personal communication with my teacher and also Collins (1983) [Annual Review of Sociology, Vol 9, pp. 265-285] originally from http://www.jstor.org/pss/2946066) Lehtv (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sociology of scientific knowledge as anti-scientific[edit]

Many scientists have criticized sociology of scientific knowledge, as well as much of sociology itself, for having allegedly contributed in undermining scientific knowledge in the United States. Many of these issues are mentioned in the article Sokal affair. The reason for this is that sociologists in general don't especially like using the methodology of philosophical realism, where the world is presented as it is or as it should be, such as what Descartes and Newton are mostly interested in. On the contrary, they tend to favour the teachings of Schopenahauer and Kant, who are more open to the idea that knowledge is constructed in a sociological sense. ADM (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Generalisation, but perhaps largely true. One must always remember Sokal affair was targeted at some of the worst postmodernist sociologists/philsophers, and not sociologists in general. --Tomsega (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

The criticism section currently possesses no references. I therefore recommend some of these paragraphs for deletion. --Tomsega (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that nearly 4 months later this has still not been addressed. More specifically, there are three citations in this section, the first Epistemological chicken and last Anti-Latour can be easily remedied as these references are clearly identifiable by full references in the Further Reading list. They only need footnotes inserted and then moving the citations from Further reading to References (I'm not sure how to do all this, as I'm new to wiki).

The third (middle) citation is much less obvious. But the paragraph should not be deleted until an effort has been made to identify a suitable reference. An early paper by John Law might be suitable (internet version: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/law-notes-on-ant.pdf) Jim Kemeny 10:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Kemeny (talkcontribs)

Sociology of science[edit]

Thanks to SA for reverting my dopey edit. I didn't realise sociology of science redirects here. Surely that is the generic article, and "sociology of scientific knowledge" can belong in it. That way we can present a range of different schools of thought alongside each other, from different countries too. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Other relevant materials[edit]

Surely inclusion of this "section" entitled "Other relevant materials" should be reconsidered ; the Becker book is an embarrassment except to his adepts and at best belongs in the reading section. One "resource" is here twice. Pick one and add another or just remove the section. If the Further Reading section is to include video resources, please rename that section as per wp guidelines.

This article itself need not reflect the state of SSK in this one respect: incoherence.

G. Robert Shiplett 20:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Links[edit]

The article lists this link that I've been trying to run down:

<http://www.at1ce.org/themenreihe.p?c=Sociology of scientific knowledge>

I've tried variations: (<http://www.at1ce.org/themenreihe.p?c=Sociology_of_scientific_knowledge> and <http://www.at1ce.org/themenreihe.p?c=Sociology%20of%20scientific%20knowledge>) but am coming up empty. I've tagged the link as dead. RedJ 17 (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the reference as I couldn't find it either... --Cic (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sociology of scientific knowledge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)