as suggested the construction of Science is a social process. As a side
point I have been following Steve Keen of Debunking Economics. One of the
interesting things about Steve Keen has been how he deconstructs the
ideological basis of economics science particularly when he deconstructs
the abuse of mathematics to confuse the public and themselves in support
of the courtier retirement plan.
He has recently spent about a month working with the Field Institute for
Mathematics in Montreal to move his economics to another higher level.
Because Neoclassical economics is a cultural echo chamber really of
wishful thinks. And then here rub while much of the left is wringing their
hands about the in vivo melt down, it seems odd that though the left has
adopted an inequalities focused economics that is buckled to essentially
neo-classical economics, which is in essence "conservative<" as in not
interested at all in the issues of inequality, except to make distribution
more un-equal. Somewhere in the round of musical chairs,what has been
installed is a behaviorist and even mainly a "micro-economics" a'la M.
Friedman where the notion of "human nature" is brought out is often used
to ex poste to explain the inequality. Much like Romney's 47% fictions
which are particularly welcomed by other racists and elitists.
The adoption of the neo-classical assumptions by the nominal left makes
for possibly greater damage to those focused upon inequality/ie than what
was accomplished by decades of suppression of the nominal left, than what
has been accomplished by the left adopting neo-classical economics. All
this makes for some interesting translations some of a decidedly zombie
Apart of this possibly goes back to Marx's adoption of several economic
concepts from the British "empiricists," which most should know was also a
self referential piece of self congratulatory ideology is in the fashion
of the Royal Academy of Science legacy, of science being an avocation of
Back to Keen, his economics is in the mode of the best that the social
sciences have. Again, his process calls into question the entire
foundation of the social science being more conservative ideological
fictions, than social science based upon capacities. Think Hannah Arendt,
not P. Samuelson.
fast forward, Tadit
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:31:05 -0400, Mitchel Cohen
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I agree with what the author is stating here. But
> it avoids the real argument, which is not that
> scientific projects involve social networks of
> people to make real, but of whether the
> underpinnings of science are objective,
> ubiquitous and absolute, and stand apart from the
> ideological (subjective) frameworks of political movements.
> It is worth pondering Marx's thoughts on ideology as a material force.
> At 01:21 PM 9/24/2012, Sam Anderson wrote:
>> Social construction of science
>> <<Sociology of science simply wants to take a
>> moment to notice science as something that is made by groups of people>>
>> This entry was posted on September 24, 2012, in
>> and tagged
>> of science,
>> â€The Knowledge Construction Unionâ€, the
>> IoE take to the streets, en mass.
>> Saying science is a social construction does not
>> amount to saying science is make believe. It
>> puzzles me that this even needs saying, and yet
>> it does, again and again and again.
>> Just because something is socially constructed
>> doesnâ€™t mean it isnâ€™t also real.
>> St Paulâ€™s Cathedral was made by more people
>> than Sir Christopher Wren, he relied upon on a
>> social network. And yet there it still stands,
>> all its socially constructed reality. I saw it
>> from the Southbank when I walked down there last
>> week. Iâ€™ve sat on its steps, been inside it,
>> climbed it, taken photos there, got drunk
>> outside, argued about it, been dazzled by it.
>> The thing is real. I do not doubt that. I admit
>> I only perceive it limited by my human
>> capacities. Iâ€™m quite short sighted, I get
>> distracted by other things and my view of the
>> place is coloured by what other people have said
>> to me about it. But even in my more annoying
>> â€œhey, what do we ever really know, really,
>> reallyâ€ philosophical moments, Iâ€™m pretty sure it exists.
>> Indeed, we could argue St Paulâ€™s is only real
>> – as opposeed to a figment of Chris Wrenâ€™s
>> imagination – beacause it wass socially
>> constructed. In order to get it built, he relied
>> upon the labour, ideas, expertise, money,
>> political will and other resources of whole
>> networks of other people. If hadnâ€™t been for
>> this network, I doubt it would have been constructed at all.
>> We could say the same for any number of
>> scientific buildings or institutions too.
>> CERNâ€™s a good example. It employs nearly 4,000
>> staff, hosting a further 10,000 visiting
>> scientists and engineers, representing 113
>> nationalities drawn from more than 600
>> universities and research facilities. Thatâ€™s
>> without getting into the large, long and complex
>> networks of broader financial, physical and
>> intellectual resources they rely up to do their
>> work. Arguably, itâ€™s because we socially
>> construct science that CERN can exist.
>> We can also apply this point to scientific
>> ideas, the construction of which is also social,
>> as individuals rely on others to check, adapt,
>> support and inspire them. Itâ€™s also worth
>> adding that just because people came up with an
>> idea doesnâ€™t mean it doesnâ€™t match reality,
>> it just means people worked together to find the
>> best idea about the world they can. Science
>> isnâ€™t nature, even if in places it might seem
>> to so have closely described the world that we
>> use it as a shorthand. To say science is made by
>> humans isnâ€™t to say the world around them is.
>> (although there is a â€œsocial construction of
>> realityâ€ strand to sociology of science, this
>> is only a strand, and itâ€™s a nuanced
>> philosophical debate which, if you want to
>> engage with, itâ€™s worth taking time over).
>> None of this is to say individuals donâ€™t play
>> a role, just that they rely on others. The fact
>> that we can, at least on occasion, collect
>> together to make stuff like the discovery of the
>> Higgs boson is one of the things that makes me happy about humanity.
>> Sociology of science simply wants to take a
>> moment to notice science as something that is
>> made by groups of people. I really donâ€™t get
>> why people find it as somehow desiring of
>> undermining science. You could equally see it as
>> a celebration. If anything, the scientific
>> community should embrace such detailed study of
>> the intricacies of their make up, it helps make
>> cases for more rigorous thinking about funding and immigration policies.
>> Some of these points are echoed in a
>> piece I wrote for the Guardianat the weekend. If
>> you want to read more, I suggest you try
>> of the original Strong Programme, as well as
>> <http://www.bruno-latour.fr/node/130>Latour on
>> networks and
>> on communalism. Or recent books by
>> Sismondo and
>> Bucchi offer slightly more digestible
>> introductions. I can also recommend Spencer
>> of Global Warming as a good case study in the
>> social structure of science, itâ€™s a slightly
>> more engrossing read than abstract theory, or
>> there was
>> nice piece about sociologists at CERN in Nature a while back.
>> Sent from Sam + Rosemari's iPad
> Ring the bells that still can ring, Forget your perfect offering.
> There is a crack, a crack in everything, That's how the light gets in.
> ~ Leonard Cohen