Scientific method Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! ===Sociology of knowledge=== {{Main|Sociology of scientific knowledge}} The sociology of knowledge is a concept in the discussion around scientific method, claiming the underlying method of science to be sociological. King explains that sociology distinguishes here between the system of ideas that govern the sciences through an inner logic, and the social system in which those ideas arise.{{efn-lg|{{Quote|quote=The sociology of knowledge is concerned with "the relationship between human thought and the social context in which it arises."<ref>Here, King quotes [[Peter L. Berger]] and [[Thomas Luckmann|Thomas Luckman]], [[The Social Construction of Reality|''The Social Construction of Reality'']] (London, 1967), 16.</ref> So, on this reading, the sociology of science may be taken to be considered with the analysis of the social context of scientific thought. But scientific thought, most sociologists concede, is distinguished from other modes of thought precisely by virtue of its immunity from social determination β insofar as it is governed by reason rather than by tradition, and insofar as it is rational it escapes determination by "non-logical" social forces. |source=M. D. King leading into his article on ''Reason, tradition, and the progressiveness of science (1971)''<ref name="King_JA1971">{{cite journal | last=King | first=M. D. | title=Reason, Tradition, and the Progressiveness of Science | journal=History and Theory | publisher=[Wesleyan University, Wiley] | volume=10 | issue=1 | year=1971 | issn=14682303 | jstor=2504396 | doi=10.2307/2504396 | pages=3β32}}</ref>}}}} ====Thought collectives==== A perhaps accessible lead into what is claimed is [[Ludwik Fleck|Fleck's]] thought, echoed in [[Thomas Kuhn|Kuhn's]] concept of [[normal science]]. According to Fleck, scientists' work is based on a thought-style, that cannot be rationally reconstructed. It gets instilled through the experience of learning, and science is then advanced based on a tradition of shared assumptions held by what he called [[Thought collective|''thought collectives'']]. Fleck also claims this phenomenon to be largely invisible to members of the group.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Harwood | first=Jonathan | title=Ludwik Fleck and the Sociology of Knowledge | journal=Social Studies of Science | volume=16 | number=1 | date=1986 | pages=173β187 | JSTOR=285293}}</ref>{{rp|177}} Comparably, following the [[field research]] in an academic scientific laboratory by [[Bruno Latour|Latour]] and [[Steve Woolgar|Woolgar]], [[Karin Knorr Cetina]] has conducted a comparative study of two scientific fields (namely [[Particle physics|high energy physics]] and [[molecular biology]]) to conclude that the epistemic practices and reasonings within both scientific communities are different enough to introduce the concept of "[[epistemic cultures]]", in contradiction with the idea that a so-called "scientific method" is unique and a unifying concept.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge|last=Knorr-Cetina |first=K. |date=1999|publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0-674-25893-8|location=Cambridge, Mass.|oclc=39539508}}</ref>{{efn|Comparing 'epistemic cultures' with Fleck 1935, [[Thought collective]]s, (''denkkollektiven''): ''Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: EinfΗhrung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv''<ref>As cited in {{harvp|Fleck|1979|p=27}}, {{harvp|Fleck|1979|pp=38β50}}</ref> {{harvp|Fleck|1979|p=xxvii}} recognizes that [[#genesisOfScientificFact|facts have lifetimes]], flourishing only after incubation periods. His selected question for investigation (1934) was "[[Thought collective#predicateIsNotStatement|HOW, THEN, DID THIS EMPIRICAL FACT ORIGINATE]] AND IN WHAT DOES IT CONSIST?".<ref>{{harvp|Fleck|1979|p=xxviii}}</ref> But by [[#genesisOfScientificFact|Fleck 1979, p.27]], the thought collectives within the respective fields will have to settle on common specialized terminology, publish their results and [[#Communication and community|further intercommunicate]] with their colleagues using the common terminology, in order to progress.<ref>{{harvp|Fleck | 1979|p=27}}</ref> {{see also|Cognitive revolution|Perceptual control theory#The methodology of modeling, and PCT as model}}}} ====Situated cognition and relativism==== {{See also|postpositivism|Relativism}} On the idea of Fleck's ''thought collectives'' sociologists built the concept of "[[situated cognition]]": that the perspective of the researcher fundamentally affects their work; and, too, more radical views.<!--even writing out "Social constructivism" and "Solipsism" feels like assigning undue weight to fringe theories here--> [[Norwood Russell Hanson]], [[Imre Lakatos]] and [[Thomas Kuhn]] have done extensive work on the [[perception|"theory-laden" character]] of observation. Hanson (1958) first coined the term for the idea that all observation is dependent on [[Situated cognition|the conceptual framework of the observer]], using the concept of [[gestalt psychology|gestalt]] to show how preconceptions can affect both observation and description.<ref>{{Citation |last=Hanson |first=Norwood |title=Patterns of Discovery |year=1958 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-05197-2 }}</ref> He opens Chapter 1 with a discussion of the [[Golgi apparatus|Golgi bodies]] and their initial rejection as an artefact of staining technique, and a discussion of [[Tycho Brahe|Brahe]] and [[Johannes Kepler|Kepler]] observing the dawn and seeing a "different" sunrise despite the same physiological phenomenon.{{efn|name= Kepler1604 }}{{efn|Brahe and Kepler are two different observers, [[intersubjectivity]] validates Hanson.}} Kuhn<ref>{{cite book |last=Kuhn |first=Thomas S. |title=The Structure of Scientific Revolutions |publisher=University of Chicago Press |location=Chicago, IL |year=2009 |isbn=978-1-4432-5544-8 |page=113 |title-link=The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}}<!--ISBN matches 2009 publication, not the 1962.--> </ref> and Feyerabend<ref>Feyerabend, Paul K (1960) "Patterns of Discovery" The Philosophical Review (1960) vol. 69 (2) pp. 247β252</ref> acknowledge the pioneering significance of Hanson's work.{{clarify inline|reason=this paragraph does not do well explaining things and giving context/ the notes may need clarification as well|date=April 2024}} Criticisms such as Kuhn's and Feyerabend's led to the [[strong programme]], a radical approach to the [[sociology of science]]. The [[postmodernism|postmodernist]] critiques of science, especially in its extreme variants of "[[social constructivism]]" and "[[solipsism]]", have themselves been the subject of intense controversy. This ongoing debate, known as the [[science wars]], is the result of conflicting values and assumptions between the postmodernist and [[Scientific realism|realist]] camps. Whereas postmodernists assert that scientific knowledge is simply another discourse (this term has special meaning in this context) and not representative of any form of fundamental truth, [[Scientific realism|realists]] in the scientific community maintain that scientific knowledge does reveal real and fundamental truths about reality. Many books have been written by scientists which take on this problem and challenge the assertions of the postmodernists while defending science as a legitimate method of deriving truth.<ref>For example: * ''Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science'', The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997 * ''Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science'', Picador. 1999 * ''The Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy'', University of Nebraska Press, 2000 {{ISBN|0-8032-7995-7}} * ''A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science'', Oxford University Press, 2000 * ''Intellectual Impostures'', Economist Books, 2003</ref> Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page