Sociology of Science

Why should sociologists study

science? Is science a social
event?
What is a paradigm shift?
What social forces influence
science?
Intro

Ultimately, science is the product of human activity,

embedded in the society which frames this activity -
and it consequently has a sociological dimension.
Some theorists have therefore argued that, rather
than spending its time imitating the discipline,
sociologists should study the social aspects of
science itself - examine the ways in which social
pressures, values and ideologies shape scientific
knowledge.
What social factors might shape scientific research?
Kaplan
 Scientists have strong ideals about the rigor of their research, in practice
these are distorted by social pressures.
 He argues that we must therefore make a distinction between:
 Reconstructed Logics - the ideal approaches, methods and procedures
that scientists claim to use.
 Logics in Use - the approaches, methods and procedures that, in
practice, they actually use.
 There is a discrepancy between what scientists claim to do, and what
they actually do. (Natural scientists do not intentionally make-up or distort
findings)
 In their day-to-day research they must make many mundane choices and
interpretations. These choices are often subjective, and shaped by the
social context of the research (e.g. the general consensus of the scientific
community) – and by pressures not only to produce findings on time, but
also to produce the “right” results (e.g. drugs that work).
Michael Lynch
 Agrees with Kaplan: many of the decisions made by
scientists in the “real world” of research have nothing to
do with the ideals of science as neutral, objective and
evidence driven.
 Science is always conducted in a social context, and that
this naturally introduces fallibility and self-interest.
 Science is conducted within a dominant framework which
“guides” the thinking of individual researchers - and leads
to selective filtering of evidence which (ironically)
undermines this very framework.
 In “Art and Artefact in Laboratory Science” Lynch
conducted observations of and interviews with scientists
who were developing theories of brain function by
examining slices of rats‘ brain.
 … “Art and Artefact in Laboratory Science”

 Some slides had unexplained features – and the researchers had to decide
whether or not to use this as evidence to challenge existing theories.
 Frequently, Lynch found that slides were rejected and anomalies were seen
as artefacts of the process of preparing them. (An artefact is a feature which
arises as part of the research process rather than naturally – e.g. a mistake in
the staining process or scratching of the specimen when it was being sliced.)
 Lynch was interested in the criteria scientists used to decide whether
anomalies were artefacts or not. He concluded that decisions were a product
of the scientists preconceptions and assumptions about types of features they
were looking for and expected to find, rather than just the actual physical
evidence.
 If the visible marks on the slide or photograph didn't fit with the scientists'
preconceptions about how the brain worked, they were more likely to dismiss
the marks as errors. In practise, this meant that they were selectively filtering
evidence until it fitted with their hypotheses.
Implications

Lynch’s study has a two main implications,

what are they?
 Scientists do not actively trying to falsify their
theories.
 Their process was far from "evidence driven"
and objective, as they were subjectively
selecting only that evidence which fitted with
their preconceptions
Macro-analysis of Science

 Kaplan and Lynch conducted micro analysis of

science - examining how individual scientists
operate, and how social processes permeate their
research.
 Kuhn, who was originally an historian, took a more
general macro approach - examining the structure
of scientific knowledge over time, and the way in
which the dominant scientific ideologies shaped
all other research.
 “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”
1962

 Examined historical developments of science

 Challenged view that science was cumulative - instead arguing that
scientific knowledge was subject to revolutions, which effectively
break down existing ideologies and replace them with new ones.
 E.g. the move from the Ptolemaic model of the solar system (with
the earth at the centre), to the Copernican system (where the sun
is placed at the centre) - and the shift from Newtonian physics to
relativity and quantum theory.
 If this is scientific “development” then science operates in
paradigms; accepted mindsets - the sum of all the norms and
values within which the scientific community exist. Ultimately,
paradigms are socially and historically constructed, but have
become naturalised to seem like common-sense (ideologies).
Scientific Paradigms
 Kuhn argues that these frameworks are powerful influences on the way
in which scientists think, and it becomes very difficult to act outside the
dominant paradigm. The main features of a scientific paradigm are
therefore that:
􀂸 It is accepted without question by all of those working in the field at the
time.
􀂸 It effectively determines the sorts of questions that scientists should and
should not investigate, and
􀂸 It determines the way in which such problems are tackled by giving rise to
set procedures, rules and standards.
 Consequently, scientists at any point in time are not neutral and open-
minded - they are “locked in” to a dominant paradigm which guides every
aspect of their thinking.
 Those who ask questions which deviate from the paradigm, or who
produce refuting evidence, are ridiculed by the academic community.
 Paradigm Shifts
Scientists have not been working within the same paradigm throughout history, as would be the
case if science was cumulative. At key points, the framework within which science operates
becomes unstable and collapses - to be replaced by a new framework. At any point in history,
science occupies one of four stages:
 Normal Science - Most of the time, the paradigm is stable, and scientists conduct research in
the context of past theories. They are socialised into an accepted worldview, and a preferred
way of conducting research. Although new discoveries are made, “fundamentals” are not
questioned. Evidence from research is always interpreted in the context of existing theories
and, if anomalies occur, they are discarded as errors (think back to Lynch). Any evidence which
contradicts the status quo is therefore blamed on the researcher and not faults in the theory.
 Paradigmatic Instability - In the course of normal science, more anomalies begin to occur.
Findings are made which cannot be explained with the existing framework, and some scientists
begin to question whether the accepted way of understanding the world is fundamentally
flawed.
 Revolutionary Science - As more and more scientists begin to question the “normal”
paradigm, a new “revolutionary” paradigm begins to emerge which can better explain
inconsistencies than the old way of thinking. For a while, the new and old paradigms exist in
competition until…
 The Death of the Old Paradigm - Eventually, more people place their faith in the new
paradigm, influential members of "the old paradigm" die off - and the old paradigm dies with
them. The revolutionary paradigm becomes dominant and, once again, we enter normal
science
Task
 Evaluation
 Kuhn's argument is science does not following the linear modernist
model of a “march of progress” - rather, it is cyclical and characterised by
revolutions which radically alter how scientists interpret the world. This
notion seems to confirm the ideas of Kaplan and Lynch, in that:
􀂸 Scientists operating within the dominant paradigm are not operating in
objective manner - they are guided by wider frameworks of norms,
values and expectations.
􀂸 It contradicts Popper's version of scientific logic, as a scientist only
working within the dominant paradigm is not actively attempting to falsify
his or her theories.
 However, the transition between normal and revolutionary science is
based not on rational reasons, but on social ones. New ways of thinking
do not prosper because they convince their opponents, but because their
opponents die out. Scientists do not switch to a new paradigm because
they have “seen the light”, but because they are abandoning an
obviously sinking ship.
 This idea that science is socially constructed is a radical departure from
the view of the scientist as the neutral and objective observer. Kuhn
argues that all knowledge is therefore relative - but there is no absolute
truth separate from the values of those who produce it.
Questions

1. Identify one other example of a paradigm shift in

science.
2. How might it be argued that scientific paradigms
are, in turn, shaped by wider social paradigms?
Social Values in Science

If scientific paradigms are shaped by broader social processes, then

scientists reflect their culture - in the same way that journalists,
though they might try to be neutral, detached and objective, will
inevitably reflect the values and ideologies of their social system.
1) Choice of methodology
Scientific research is subject to the legal and regulatory
frameworks of the societies in which it is embedded. E.g.
research on cloning and biological warfare are prohibited by
individual countries, international legislation and moritoria (such
as that on nuclear weapon proliferation). Legal frameworks are
the product of the values of people which produce them - socially
constructed. Especially health and safety legislation e.g. formal
and informal social controls on the use of animals.
2) Choice of topics
The “climate” of society at any given time e.g. the worship of youth in western
capitalist societies has led to massive increase in antiageing chemical
treatments.
Direct governmental pressures have guided the priorities of scientists e.g.
Eugenics (genetic engineering) in Nazi Germany.
Expansion of free-market capitalism means that corporate, rather than
governmental, bodies now exert the most pressure in shaping scientific
research. Scientists most compete for for funding, which is usually for
projects which are priorities for the corporations - they are shaped by
values of capitalism, particularly the profit-motive.
E.g. Pharmaceutical research – resources put into “lifestyle drugs” which help
with weight-loss or sexual virility. These priorities represent the profit which
these products yield - rather than human need, which is for research into
AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis (diseases which inordinately affect
peoples of the third world, who are poor and not “good consumers”).
Bill Gates pointed out that Malaria (a disease of the poor), is responsible for
3% of all lost years of life - but accounts for only 0.3% of health funding. In
contrast, diabetes (which is more associated with the rich world) gets
around 1.6% of medical research funding, yet accounts for only 1.1% of
lost years of productive life.
In recent years, oil and gas companies have handpicked individual scientists
and research think-tanks which are skeptical of global warming. Exxon-
Mobil has spent $12,000,000 funding anti-global warming research -
research which skews the public perceptions of global warming.
3) “Social” Conclusions
Other theorists have taken this argument a step further, highlighting
that current social values and ideologies also shape the
conclusions drawn by scientists and the theories which become
dominant and integrated into the scientific paradigm.
 Gomm provided Darwin's theory of evolution as a case study,
highlighting how social values permeated both its construction and
its resultant popularisation. In its time, Darwinism could have been
classified as “revolutionary science” as it attacked the foundations
of the dominant paradigm (the genesis explanation of the origin of
species). Since that time, it has been adopted as common sense -
as "normal science".
 Gomm argues that we should not assume that it is free of social
influence - we should examine how wider societal process which
influenced its adoption into the mainstream.
1.What are the main differences between the two theories of
evolution presented in the below?
2. Why do you think Darwin's theory on evolution has been
accepted above Kropotkin's? (think about who it benefits)
 Why Darwin’s theory prevailed
 Gomm argues that both Darwin and Kropotkin's arguments are equally carefully argued,
and are equally based in direct empirical evidence. However, it was Darwin's competitive
vision of the natural world which became dominant, as - according to Gomm - it fitted
more neatly with the ideologies of the dominant social groups of Victorian Britain. He
argues that the theory;
􀂸 Justified the free-market capitalist system, and provided a counter argument against
socialist ideas of state intervention is social problems. Therefore, the theory could be used
to support the idea that a welfare-state would be counter productive, as it would disrupt
the natural order - the idea that the strongest survive - and weaken Britain’s “genetic
stock”.
􀂸 Legitimised the notion that the poor were feckless and immoral - and therefore not worthy
of assistance. Consequently, the theory supported harsh social policies such as the
provision of workhouses.
􀂸 It viewed species as superior or inferior, and allowed groups within the species to be
placed on an evolutionary scale. It “allowed the Victorians to lay out the peoples of
the world on an evolutionary ladder, with Australian aboriginals at the bottom and
Victorian intellectual males at the top”. In practice, it therefore justified the colonisation
of nonwestern people on the grounds that the British empire would “civilise” them.
 Gomm's example helps us to see how social factors permeate science - with values,
rather than fact, at best guiding and at worst determining, whether a theory becomes part
of the dominant paradigm.
 Social Forces
= Ethics/
Methods/
Topics

Macro=
Micro Values/
= Lab Ideologies

Conclusion
and Theories =
which
ideologies
become
dominant