Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK)

David Bloor

David Bloor’s Knowledge and Social Imagery (1976) suggests that all the ways that we’ve been viewing thus far is “weak,” in the sense that isn’t very useful for understanding the social dynamics between science and technology. The stratification and Merton’s Norms and Kuhn’s paradigms never really actually touch on the technical knowledge of science or technology.

In a way, this builds on Kuhn’s model. Scientific knowledge that we produce is shaped by conditions and factors and “interests”. These aren’t particular to the scientist, but with our training, our background, and how we see the world–our identity and perspectives shape our scientific knowledge. These “interests” + engagement reality create scientific knowledge.

This is similar to Kuhn’s model–the science we create builds upon previous norms and the current paradigm of thinking–it just adds the social layer to it.

These suggest that credibility and efficiency aren’t absolute notions–as our values and interests change, those credible features will fall as well.

There are 4 basic methodological tenents of SSK (how we should study science socially):

Causality: conditions that bring about beliefs; What do we do when we study science as a social process? What are the historical conditions that make it possible for people to believe certain things are the facts? Quantum Mechanics! How do people take this wack idea that seems just made out and make it credible? What social environment allows that to happen?
Impartiality: with respect to truth of falsity, success or failure; The aptitude of the social scientists–a piece of knowledge is true or false by our own standards should not play a part in this analysis. It doesn’t matter if you believe in quantum mechanics or not. SSK investigators should be focused on understanding how it became the dominant theory.
Symmetry: same types of causes for true and false beliefs; In the kind of narrative that we make, it doesn’t matter if it’s true or false. We know it can change, but the story of how it became credible or how it lost credibility can change. How can somebody believe something ‘false’? Any knowledge that is constructed has to come back to sociological terms–at the very least, a theory has to be tested, verified, and agreed upon to become the dominant theory. There is always sociology going on, no matter what the content of the science.
Reflexivity: our own knowledge is socially shaped; Science and technology are socially constructed and socially shaped! When it comes to knowledge, there is nothing that is absolute–everything is subject to change.

To contrast with Kuhn, Bloor’s model assumes science to be much more fluid and changing that what Kuhn assumes.

What Bloor suggests is that scientific knowledge is a bit like money–we have some kind of constructed and conventional dimension to its value, to what it means. Technological and scientific knowledge is always channeled by the specific culture in which it is produced or operated in.

Without the social aspect, you have no science. If we were all robots, there is no science. This goes back to the point that there is no private language–it either comes with the social dimension, or it isn’t exist.

Case Study: Eddington’s 1919 Proof of Relativity Theory

Eddington observed that during a solar eclipse, there were some stars that weren’t where they should be. Because they were somewhat displaced, he was able to verify Einstein’s theory of relativity.

(Some details were missed because I zoned out here) Essentially, Eddington used what already believed to be true, collected data, and used his beliefs to conclude and confirm his truth. Yes, he might have selected specific data points, but that’s not really the point–this is what happens in science all the time. We already believe something, test it, and confirm our belief.

Two Fundamental Kuhnian insights:

Experiments alone cannot “prove” a theory.
Data and noise? What actually counts as evidence? Because we can never have “pure” data, our observation is always “theory-laden.”

All this to say, science never gives us absolute truth. Facts don’t speak for themselves, and things are always changing.

Bloor describes science in terms of 20th century science–something used to produce credible knowledge which policymakers can make decisions upon. Using today’s definition of science would make people like Newton not a scientist.

There is a story of a team who sent a bunch of laptops and resources down South to give teenagers a chance to be just like the kids from Palo Alto. The project failed, simply because there was a big cultural difference and a lack of imagination. Simply put, even with the resources, the teenagers didn’t know what to do with this technology.

Science is social, active, and not natural.

We now have this notion that science is always making something (experiments, technology, gadgets…). But if we go back in time or to different cultures, science is very much about contemplating the universe, and recognizing the harmony of the universe. This touching and using your hands is a science that is relatively new. SSK emphasizes that science is about manipulation and building.
Science isn’t natural in that there are so many different ways to think about it. Even if I say “this table 8m.” This feels scientific and precise, but there’s many ways that we could describe a table or different metrics than a meter. Everything is contingent, subject to change.

Sociological Finitism

This is inspired by Wittgenstein’s argument about rules: Everytime we say “we’re following a rule,” we make a lot of assumptions. These rules are fluid and are also contingent. If we define a species to be x, y, and z; come across a new mammal with x, y, z, and v. Is it still the same species or is it different? We’re not forced to say yes or no–there is space for disagreement.

This is just a new version of the problem of induction, with a sociological solution. SSK is interested in this flexibility and disagreement–our intuitions and decisions are contingent and based on our values and interests, as mentioned above.

The Case of Mathematics

Are you really going to tell me that 2 + 2 = 4 is not always the case? There are cultures and tribes that use numeric systems as “1, 2, …, many.” Using 2 + 2 = 4 isn’t particularly useful. You just get many.

What is really justifying the claim in its abstractness? If you put a rabbit and a lion in a cage, you get 1 + 1 = 1. There’s a big 3-page proof that proves that 1 + 1 = 2, but is that how we believe that this is the case?

We believe this because of how our schools teach us. There’s no obvious empirical or logical evidence, we’ve just been taught and drilled this way.

So according to SSK, we can still come up with a social dimension to something like simple mathematics.

It's nice to be able to forget things.