Advertisement

Metascience

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 7–85 | Cite as

Review symposia

  • Martin Rudwick
  • Naomi Oreskes
  • David Oldroyd
  • David Philip Miller
  • Alan Chalmers
  • John Forge
  • David Turnbull
  • Peter Slezak
  • David Bloor
  • Craig Callender
  • Keith Hutchison
  • Steven Savitt
  • Huw Price
Article

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. 1.
    David Oldroyd,Thinking about the Earth: A History of Ideas in Geology. London: The Athlone Press, 1996. Pp. 410. £ 50 HB.Google Scholar

Reference

  1. 1.
    Barry Barnes, David Bloor and John Henry,Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis. London/Chicago: Athlone Press/The University of Chicago Press, 1996. Pp. xii + 230. £ 15.95 PB.Google Scholar

References

  1. 1.
    H.M. Collins,Changing Order:Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice.London: SAGE, 1985. Collins builds ultimately on Wittgenstein. The latter’s famous propositions about rules are another instance of a finitist viewpoint.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See for example the preoccupations of Steven Shapin,A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994, and the advanced epistemology of constraint offered in Andrew Pickering,The Mangle of Practice. Time, Agency and Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Steven Shapin, “History of Science and its Sociological Reconstructions”,History of Science, 20, 1982, 157–211. On the active mobilisation of conceptual resources from the sociology of science by historians in the years since Shapin’s important survey see Jan Golinski, “The Theory of Practice and the Practice of Theory: Sociological Approaches in the History of Science”,ISIS, 81, 1990, 492–505.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barry Barnes,T.S. Kuhn and Social Science. London: Macmillan, 1982 and David Bloor,Wittgenstein: A Social Theory of Knowledge. London: Macmillan, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steven Shapin, “Following Scientists Around”,Social Studies of Science, 18, 1988, 533–50, at p. 544 and p. 549, n. 14. In similar vein see also Simon Schaffer, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Bruno Latour”,Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 22, 1991, 174–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Useful ways into this literature are: S.L. Star and J.R. Griesemer, “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’, and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39”,Social Studies of Science, 19, 1989, 387–420; Joan H. Fujimura, “Crafting Science: Standardized Packages, Boundary Objects, and ‘Translation’”, in Andrew Pickering (ed.),Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992, 168–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    See, for example, John Schuster and Graeme Watchirs, “Natural Philosophy, Experiment and Discourse in the 18th Century”, in Homer Le Grand (ed.),Experimental Inquiries: Historical, Philosophical, and Social Studies of Experimentation in Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990, 1–48. Also see John Schuster and Alan Taylor, “Blind Trust: The Gentlemanly Origins of Experimental Science”,Social Studies of Science (Forthcoming).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    See Steve Woolgar, “Interests and Explanation in the Social Study of Science”,Social Studies of Science, 11, 1981, 365–94 and the response by Barnes inidem., 481–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    The work of Andy Pickering was certainly important here:Constructing Quarks. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Among many of Wynne’s writings might be mentioned recent work with Simon Shackley on climate science and policy, for example, Simon Shackley and Brian Wynne, “Global Climate Change: The Mutual Construction of an Emergent Science-policy Domain”,Science and Public Policy, 22, 1995, 218–30.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brian Wynne, “Representing Policy Constructions and Interests in SSK”,Social Studies of Science, 22, 1992, 575–80. Wynne was commenting on the following exchange: Daniel Lee Kleinman, “Conceptualizing the Politics of Science: A Response to Cambrosio, Limoges and Pronovost”,Social Studies of Science, 21, 1991, 769–74; Cambrosio, Limoges and Pronovost, “Analysing Science Policy-Making: Political Ontology or Ethnography?: A Reply to Kleinman”,ibid., 775–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    The concentration by BB&H on historical examples is even more odd given that Barnes & Edge,Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology of Science. Milton Keynes: The Open University Press, 1982, had precisely the sort of scope from which the current volume would have benefited.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Michel Callon, “Four Models for the Dynamics of Science”, in Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen and Trevor Pinch (eds),Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1996, 29–63.Google Scholar

Reference

  1. 1.
    Huw Price,Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Pp. xiv + 306. A$35 HB.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian Association for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Rudwick
    • 1
  • Naomi Oreskes
    • 2
  • David Oldroyd
    • 3
  • David Philip Miller
    • 3
  • Alan Chalmers
    • 4
  • John Forge
    • 5
  • David Turnbull
    • 6
  • Peter Slezak
    • 3
  • David Bloor
    • 7
  • Craig Callender
    • 8
  • Keith Hutchison
    • 9
  • Steven Savitt
    • 10
  • Huw Price
    • 11
  1. 1.Science Studies ProgramUniversity of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Gallatin School of Individualized StudyNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.School of Science and Technology StudiesThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Unit for History and Philosophy of ScienceSydney UniversitySydneyAustralia
  5. 5.Faculty of Science and TechnologyGriffith UniversityNathanAustralia
  6. 6.Social Studies of ScienceDeakin UniversityGeelongAustralia
  7. 7.Science Studies UnitEdinburgh UniversityEdinburghScotland
  8. 8.Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific MethodThe London School of EconomicsLondonEngland
  9. 9.History and Philosophy of ScienceMelbourne UniversityParkvilleAustralia
  10. 10.Department of PhilosophyThe University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  11. 11.School of PhilosophyUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations