Skip to content

STS Scribbles

Why bother with meta-studies of Science?

What's the meta for?

Meta-studies of Science is the of Science stuff

image info

the "of Science"

Philosophy (oldest)

  • Traditionally a normative study: Recommends how things should be

Sociology (more modern)

  • Traditionally a descriptive study: Describes how things are

History (around a while)

  • Resource of lessons and examples: Inspiration and testbench of theories of science

NB Critique doesn’t have to be critical: this isn’t anti-science!

  • Cf. film reviews, sports commentary, political pundits

So What?

The perspective of history and other disciplines can raise some issues which are uncomfortable in the modern context.

Sociological questions

  • Agency: what role for human actors in function of Science

  • Contingency: what potential for other directions in science and technology

  • Community: are group properties ignored in favour of individual focus

Omissions are part of mythologising Science. Myths give science an authoritative but precarious status, particularly when practice does not achieve promise.

image info

Myths and methodology

Your views on (scientific) history reflect your views on the (scientific) present

Philosophy issues

  • Bias: Based on observed data or innate prejudice

  • Objectivity: Based on public data or subjective opinion

  • Cumulative: Improving over time with growing data or leaps of faith

  • Autonomous: Based on internal reason, not external influences

As much a Point of View as studying specifics of Scientific Practice

image info

Point of View