LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  September 2012

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE September 2012

Subject:

Re: Social construction of science

From:

Tadit Anderson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:47:53 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (222 lines)

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  
character.

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  
the wealthy.

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.
>
> Mitchel
>
>
>
> 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
>> <http://alicerosebell.wordpress.com/category/science/>science,
>> <http://alicerosebell.wordpress.com/category/sociology/>sociology
>> and tagged
>> <http://alicerosebell.wordpress.com/tag/philosophy-of-science/>philosophy
>> of science,
>> <http://alicerosebell.wordpress.com/tag/science/>science,
>> <http://alicerosebell.wordpress.com/tag/social-constructivism/>social
>> constructivism,
>> <http://alicerosebell.wordpress.com/tag/sociology-of-science/>sociology
>> of  
>> <http://alicerosebell.wordpress.com/tag/sociology-of-science/>science.
>>
>>  ”The Knowledge Construction Union”, 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
>> doesn’t mean it isn’t also real.
>>
>> St Paul’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. I’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. I’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
>> “hey, what do we ever really know, really,
>> really” philosophical moments, I’m pretty sure it exists.
>>
>> Indeed, we could argue St Paul’s is only real
>> – as opposeed to a figment of Chris Wren’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 hadn’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.
>> CERN’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. That’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, it’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. It’s also worth
>> adding that just because people came up with an
>> idea doesn’t mean it doesn’t match reality,
>> it just means people worked together to find the
>> best idea about the world they can. Science
>> isn’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 isn’t to say the world around them is.
>> (although there is a “social construction of
>> reality” strand to sociology of science, this
>> is only a strand, and it’s a nuanced
>> philosophical debate which, if you want to
>> engage with, it’s worth taking time over).
>>
>> None of this is to say individuals don’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 don’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
>> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/22/ig-nobels-celebrate-small-beautiful-science>short
>> piece I wrote for the Guardianat the weekend. If
>> you want to read more, I suggest you try
>> <http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/K/bo3684600.html>some
>> of the original Strong Programme, as well as
>> <http://www.bruno-latour.fr/node/130>Latour on
>> networks and
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Merton#Sociology_of_science>Merton
>> on communalism. Or recent books by
>> <http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405187654.html>Sergio
>> Sismondo and
>> <http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415322003/>Massimiano
>> Bucchi offer slightly more digestible
>> introductions. I can also recommend Spencer
>> Weart’s
>> <http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm>Discovery
>> of Global Warming as a good case study in the
>> social structure of science, it’s a slightly
>> more engrossing read than abstract theory, or
>> there was
>> <http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100324/full/464482a.html>a
>> nice piece about sociologists at CERN in Nature a while back.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from Sam + Rosemari's iPad
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.MitchelCohen.com
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager