The sociology of scientific knowledge

[lightgigantic]

Recent studies of the emergence of Western scientific knowledge accentuate that "credible" knowledge is situated at an intersection between physical locales and social distinctions. Historical, sociological, and ethnomethodological studies of science by scholars such as Harry Collins, Michael Mulkay, Steven Shapin, Thomas Kuhn, Harold Garfinkel, Michael Lynch, Steve Woolgar, Andrew Pickering, Bruno Latour, Karin Knorr-Cetina, Donna Haraway, Allucquere Stone, and Malcolm Ashmore all point to the observation that scientific disciplines, be they paleoanthropology or astronomy, "manufacture knowledge" through locally constructed representational systems and practical devices for making their discovered phenomenon visible, accountable, and consensual to a larger disciplinary body of tradition. As Michael Lynch reminds us, "scientists construct and use instruments, modify specimen materials, write articles, make pictures and build organizations."


- Pierce J Flynn PHD
CSU

it continually crops up on threads here so I thought we might as well address it directly ......

Can the claims that religion utilizes processes of disciplinary supression and handling "anomolous evidence" to build persuasive theory and local institutions of knowledge also be directed towards science?

Here are a few links to check out to get the ball rolling (there are enough names dropped inthe above paragraph to find heaps more)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_scientific_knowledge
http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ghi/hhhr.html
http://www.havenscenter.org/VSP/archives/vsps05/lynch/Lynch_Cole_Final_draft.pdf
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/

[Fire]

Of course knowledge is manufactured in a sense. The distance of Pluto from the Earth doesn't just spring into our minds. Religious notions are also manufactured.

That's where the comparison ends though. Knowledge in science is manufactured based on objective physical evidence. Things such as heaven and the eternal soul do not exist based on objective physical evidence, but exist purely because we want them to. If science was to state that there is life on a planet around Alpha Centurai without providing evidence, then that would be the same nature in which religion comes about its 'knowledge'.

[lightgigantic]

The issue raised in the numerous links on this subject however is that the objectivity of the the said evidence (or more specificly the significance of the evidence) is questionable (that is it is not automatically objective) due to the social framework science operates out of

[spidergoat]

Everything in science is questionable.

[lightgigantic]

Everything in science is questionable.

well according to the links, the questioning frequently becomes difficult due to the institutionalization of science

[original]

You don't need an institution to make a scientific query, nor do you need a religious institution. The difference between science and religion is apparent when you apply them. A belief is a hypothesis, and using science to reach a conclusion involves recording and analyzing empirical data, then adjusting your hypothesis. But with religion the belief is not tested, it simply changes at the will of the believer. If a scientist could do that, then he would probably be a God.

[spidergoat]

I acknowledge that science can be subject to all the prejudices, greed, superstituions, and pre-conceptions of human beings everywhere. That makes critical thinking all the more important.

[baumgarten]

Opinion among the scientific community is obviously sociological. Look at the current establishment's obsession with string theory if you want evidence.

Scientific knowledge is not the same thing. There are specific criteria that qualify a belief as scientific knowledge, and the will of the collective is not among them.

[lightgigantic]

Opinion among the scientific community is obviously sociological. Look at the current establishment's obsession with string theory if you want evidence.

Scientific knowledge is not the same thing. There are specific criteria that qualify a belief as scientific knowledge, and the will of the collective is not among them.


And there are no qualifying or specific criteria for theistic knowledge - like if the pope says that garfield comics shall be lexiconed for biblical posterity thats okay?

And the will of the collective amongst the community of science does not dictate what specific evidence indicates?

[lightgigantic]

I acknowledge that science can be subject to all the prejudices, greed, superstituions, and pre-conceptions of human beings everywhere. That makes critical thinking all the more important.


and critical thinking is not applicable in theism?

[spidergoat]

It could be. In practice it is rare.

[baumgarten]

And there are no qualifying or specific criteria for theistic knowledge - like if the pope says that garfield comics shall be lexiconed for biblical posterity thats okay?

I was unaware that we were discussing religion.


And the will of the collective amongst the community of science does not dictate what specific evidence indicates?

No. Hopefully it's the other way around; group behavior offers us no guarantees.

[Fraggle Rocker]

Even the most cherished and entrenched scientific theory can be modified or even replaced if sufficient evidence is discovered that challenges it. Admittedly it may be difficult if the community of scientists feels threatened--difficult but not impossible. Even the works of Velikovsky and Cayce have undergone proper scientific peer review. Right at this moment, somewhere in America, a respected "establishment" scientist is engaged in a proper, scientific debate in public with an antievolutionist. I've been to one and the wacko was treated with the utmost courtesy and decorum.

Religion does not work that way because by definition religion is based upon untestable hypotheses.

When a scientist says he "believes" in string theory, he is saying this not as a matter of faith but as a matter of probability. He is saying that in his professional opinion the probability of string theory being disproven is comfortably small. If it is indeed disproven he may perhaps be sad because it was a neat model and it's a shame to lose it, and also because he'll have to pay off quite a few bets on which he gave odds, but his trust in the scientific method will not be shaken.

[superluminal]

What does religion have to do with this?

Scientists are subjective creatures who work within the social context of the day. What they are endeavoring to do is uncover objective relationships and facts about the cosmos.

And everything is based on accepted definitions. A 2kg mass is twice the mass of a 1kg standard mass. No one cares what the arbitrary definition of "kg" is.

The speed of light is constant and independent of the motion of the observer, to the best of our ability to measure.

Scientific knowledge is either accurate in it's depiction of nature or it isn't. This spans time and societies. Theories may be wrong, and may be refined. But a measurement of the circumference of the earth in cubits or meters is not a socialogical construct.

[psikeyhackr]

You must beware of people in the soft sciences talking bullshit to bring the hard sciences down to their level. :D :D

psik

[lightgigantic]

What does religion have to do with this?

Scientists are subjective creatures who work within the social context of the day. What they are endeavoring to do is uncover objective relationships and facts about the cosmos.

And everything is based on accepted definitions. A 2kg mass is twice the mass of a 1kg standard mass. No one cares what the arbitrary definition of "kg" is.

The speed of light is constant and independent of the motion of the observer, to the best of our ability to measure.

Scientific knowledge is either accurate in it's depiction of nature or it isn't. This spans time and societies. Theories may be wrong, and may be refined. But a measurement of the circumference of the earth in cubits or meters is not a socialogical construct.

I think the social issue comes in not so much with the evidence but what the evidence signifies - if you think that the transition from "evidence" to "conclusion" (particularly in regard to scientific ideas, like paleoanthropology or astronomy, and not simple mathematics like 2+2=4, which is kind of a straw man) is smooth and uniform the process is probably glossed over and you don't realize it (which is what the sociology of scientific knowledge is addressing)