Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:51:53.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Levels of Reflexivity: Unnoted Differences within the “Strong Programme” in the Sociology of Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Edward Manier
Edward Manier*
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although Barry Barnes (1974, 1977) and David Bloor (1976, 1978, 1981) are co-workers in the Science Studies Unit at the University of Edinburgh, there are hitherto unnoted but fundamental differences in their programs in the sociology of science.

Bloor defines his “strong programme” in the sociology of science by three basic tenets (“causality,” “symmetry,” and “reflexivity”) and also claims to establish laws and to test a general theory of the causal links connecting cognitive and social factors in the history of science. (Bloor 1976, pp. 4-5). In other words, the “strong programme” aims to be: (1) Causal, i.e., concerned with the conditions which bring about beliefs or states of knowledge. (2) Symmetrical, i.e., appealing to the same sorts of causes and to the same patterns of causal explanation for all beliefs and cognitive claims, whether regarded as true or false, rational or irrational, successful or unsuccessful. (3) Reflexive, i.e., using the explanatory resources of the sociology of science in the critical evaluation and explanation of the sociology of science itself.

Type
Part VII. Evolutionary Epistemology and the Sociology of Knowledge
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1980 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1980 , 1980 , pp. 197 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I am very appreciative of David Bloor's friendly and generous responses to early versions of my criticism of his program. The development of my evaluation of Douglas’ use of the scheme of “classification and control” owes much to collegial discussion with J. David Lewis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Notre Dame. The efforts of Bloor and Lewis isolate responsibility for errors remaining in the paper squarely on my shoulders. My work on this topic was initially facilitated by a conference grant from the Center for the Study of Man in Contemporary Society, University of Notre Dame; it was continued while I was on leave as a Fellow of the National Humanities Institute at the University of Chicago.

References

Barnes, B. (1974). Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Barnes, B. (1977). Interests and the Growth of Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Barnes, B. and Shapin, S. (eds.). (1979). Natural Order. San Francisco: Sage.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, Codes and Control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bloor, D. (1978). “Polyhedra and the Abominations of Leviticus.” British Journal for the History of Science. 11: 245–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloor, D. (1981). “Durkheim and Mauss Revisited: Classification and the Sociology of Knowledge.” To be published in The Language of Sociology. Edited by John Law.Google Scholar
Boon, L. (1979). “Review of Knowledge and Social Imagery.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 30: 195–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. (1970). Natural Symbols. New York: Pantheon. (Cited edition (1973) New York: Vintage.)Google Scholar
Douglas, M. (1975). Implicit Meanings. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Freudenthal, G. (1979). “How Strong is Dr. Bloor's ‘Strong Programme’?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 10: 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gliserman, S. (1975). “Early Victorian Science Writers and Tennyson's ‘In Memoriam’: A Study in Cultural Exchange.” Victorian Studies. 18: 277–308, 437-59.Google Scholar
Harris, M. (1977). Cannibals and Kings. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Harris, M. (1979). Cultural Materialism. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Heimann, P.M. (1978). “Review of The Newtonians and the English Revolution, 1689-1720.” History of Science. 16: 143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesse, M. (1966). Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. (1970). “Hermeticism and Historiography: An Apology for the Internal History of Science.” In Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science. (Minnesota Studies in Philosophy of Science, Volume V.) Edited by Stuewer, Roger. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Pages 134–160.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. (1974). The Structure of Scientific Inference. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacob, J.R. (1972). “The Ideological Origins of Robert Boyle's Natural Philosophy.” Journal of European Studies. 2: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacob, M.C. (1976). The Newtonians and the English Revolution, 1689-1720. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judson, H.F. (1979). The Eighth Day of Creation. New York: Simon and Shuster.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and Refutations. Edited by Worrall, J. and Zahar, E. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, D. and Barnes, B. (1979). “Scientific Judgment: the Biometry-Mendelism Controversy.” In Barnes and Shapin (1979). Pages 191–210.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. (1978). Newton on Matter and Activity. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Manier, Edward. (1978). The Young Darwin and His Cultural Circle. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manier, Edward. (1980). “History, Philosophy and Sociology of Biology: A Family Romance.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 11: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olby, R. (1974). The Path to the Double Helix. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Sahlins, M. (1976a). Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sahlins, M. (1976b). The Use and Abuse of Biology. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, S. and Barnes, B. (1979). “Darwin and Social Darwinism: Purity and History.” In Barnes and Shapin (1979). Pages 125-42.Google Scholar
Worrall, J. (1979). “A Reply to David Bloor.” British Journal for the History of Science. 12: 71–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar