Sociology of Scientific Knowledgeweek 5

Economic Methodology

From observation to scientific fact

Objective connotation Subjective connotation Intersubjective

connotation

Richard Butler’s Triangle of Relationships in Social Inquiry

Investigation of ...

Eureka!

Context of Discovery Context of Justification

Research results

The sociological shift

Traditional philosophy of science focuses on the rules of proper scientific method and such things as logic, truth, role of assumptions, use of evidence, etc. that influence acceptance and rejection of theories

Sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) puts all of this aside, and focuses on the sociological behavior of scientists in terms of their motives and interests as members of communities of scientists to understand their acceptance or rejection of theories

Kuhn’s influence

The implication of Kuhn’s work is that scientists make decisions about science for reasons they are unaware of

There is a disconnect between what they believe and the reasons for their beliefs

Before Kuhn it was believed social factors influenced the conditions under science was practiced, but did not influence the content of science

Kuhn’s emphasis on ‘world views’ changes this

Robert Merton

The Sociology of Science (1973)

Focus is the social or cultural preconditions for empirical science

These values traceable to values of ascetic Protestantism of 17th century Europe

4 defining norms of science (CUDOS)

Communism (= communalism) the common ownership of scientific discoveries, according to which scientists give up intellectual property rights in exchange for recognition and esteem

Disinterestedness according to which scientists are rewarded for acting in ways that outwardly appear to be selfless

Universalism according to which claims to truth are evaluated in terms of universal or impersonal criteria, and not on the basis of race, class, gender, religion, or nationality

Organized skepticism all ideas must be tested and are subject to rigorous, structured community scrutiny

Naturalistic Turn

Investigation of practice itself Positive Philosophy Scientific practice is investigated like nature is

investigated by scientists

The Edinburgh School ‘strong programme’

Starting point is a ‘naturalistic’ approach to scientific knowledge; scientists are to be investigated just as we would any other natural phenomena

4 principles

Causality: it examines the conditions (psychological, social, and cultural) that bring about claims to a certain kind of knowledge.

Impartiality: it examines successful as well as unsuccessful knowledge claims.

Symmetry: the same types of explanations are used for successful and unsuccessful knowledge claims alike.

Reflexivity: it must be applicable to sociology itself.

The Edinburgh School ‘strong programme’

One specific approach to explaining scientific beliefs: beliefs are explained in terms of the social interests of scientists

Scientists’ social interests are based on their particular place in the overall pattern of social relationships: personal, group, professional, class, national, etc.

Empirical in orientation; knowledge is what scientists take it to be, not what philosophers say it is

Bruno Latour

(with Steve Woolgar) Laboratory Life: The (Social) Construction of Scientific Facts (1979)

Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society (1987)

Opening Pandora's Black Box

Left face: ready-made science

Right face: science in the making

Laboratory studies approach

Focus: the daily practices of scientists in their laboratories or worksites and how their theories reflect their nature of their practical activity

An ethnographical approach Micro-social in emphasis, and based on case studies Social constructionist perspective:

– explanations are highly detailed and contextual, and so are ‘constructed’ around what gets emphasis

– the world is a consequence rather than a cause of science, and nature has little to do with science

Philosophical problems: relativism

Epistemological relativism: ‘truth’ and ‘knowledge’ are relative to specific societies and historical circumstances

Empirical foundationalism: scientific laws based on evidence have ‘incorrigible’ foundations

Theory-ladenness of observations: theories can never be tested by evidence because evidence presupposes those theories

Is theory always relative to context and history?

Economics and SSK

Economics of science (ES): study of economic factors that influence the conditions under which science is practiced, but which do not influence the content of science; called the ‘old’ economics of science

Economics of scientific knowledge (ESK): the application of economic models to the determination of scientists’ beliefs; called the ‘new’ economics of science

ES: Science policy

Application of the standard tools of welfare economics, externalities, and public goods to determine the optimal level of scientific research

Two views of basic scientific research:– creates positive externalities and underproduced in

competitive markets– is a pure public good

Recommended policy:– Government should subsidize basic scientific research – Patents/property rights allow recovery of positive

spillovers

ESK: The Dasgupta and David model

‘open science’: a system of social organization which makes scientific results available as quickly as possible

openness is incentive-compatible with a reward system based on self-interest– Rewards depend on priority of discoveries– Discoveries must be made public to provide credit– Credit only for reliable and sound discoveries– Compensation should favor competition winner

ESK: Kitcher

Social epistemology: science is organized socially, so scientific standards are social ones

Goal: increase the ratio of reliable beliefs to total beliefs in the population

Means: arrange social institutions in most epistemically efficient way possible

Principle: knowledge is promoted by cognitive diversity, or through competition

Model: industrial organization of cognitive labor

SSK and ESK

Sociological approaches rather than psychological approaches

What are the psychological mechanisms that influence beliefs and scientists’ interaction?

What are the forms of communication between scientists?

How do scientists influence one another?