Advertisement

What Is Science?

  • Harry CollinsEmail author
  • Robert Evans
  • Darrin Durant
  • Martin Weinel
Chapter

Abstract

Since the early 1970s, in social studies of science and technology (STS), the ‘logic of scientific discovery’ has been displaced by detailed examinations of science in practice; this has eroded the cultural position of scientific expertise. Furthermore, the ‘crown jewels’ of science, Newtonian physics and the like, are no longer accepted as justifying science’s contribution to citizens’ more diffuse technical concerns. Scientific expertise now seems more fallible, less removed from ordinary decision-making and less insulated from political and social forces. Populist leaders, who attack scientific expertise because it limits their power, can draw on these ideas. STS must stop celebrating the erosion of scientific expertise and, without sacrificing the new insights, rethink the justification for the role of science in democratic societies.

Keywords

Social studies of science and technology (STS) Erosion of science’s role in democracy Scientific values Rethinking science’s role 

References

  1. Bijker, Wiebe E. 2007. Dikes and Dams, Thick with Politics. Isis 98 (1): 109–123.  https://doi.org/10.1086/512835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloor, David. 1973. Wittgenstein and Mannheim on the Sociology of Mathematics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 4 (2): 173–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(73)90003-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ———. 1991. Knowledge and Social Imagery. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Callon, Michel. 1986. Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? ed. John Law, 196–223. London: Routledge. http://ionesco.sciences-po.fr/com/moodledata/3/Callon_SociologyTranslation.pdf.Google Scholar
  5. Collins, Harry. 1974. The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks. Science Studies 4 (2): 165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ———. 1975. The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or the Replication of Experiments in Physics. Sociology 9 (2): 205–224.  https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857500900202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins, Harry. 1985/1992. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [1992 = second edition]Google Scholar
  8. Collins, Harry M., and Robert Evans. 2002. The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience. Social Studies of Science 32 (2): 235–296.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312702032002003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, Harry, and Robert Evans. 2017a. Why Democracies Need Science. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, Harry, Robert Evans, and Martin Weinel. 2017. STS as Science or Politics? Social Studies of Science 47 (4): 580–586.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717710131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins, Harry M., Sam Finn, and Patrick Sutton. 2001. What Is TWAP? Three Notes on the American Election in the Year 2000. Social Studies of Science 31 (3): 428–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins, Harry M., and Trevor J. Pinch. 1979. The Construction of the Paranormal: Nothing Unscientific Is Happening. The Sociological Review 27 (1_suppl): 237–270.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1979.tb00064.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2005. Dr. Golem How to Think about Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collins, Harry M, and Trevor Pinch. 2010. The Golem at Large: What You Should Know about Technology. 6th Print. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Collins, Harry M., Martin Weinel, and Robert Evans. 2010. The Politics and Policy of the Third Wave: New Technologies and Society. Critical Policy Studies 4 (2): 185–201.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2010.490642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Douglas, Heather E. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Durant, Darrin. 2016. The Undead Linear Model of Expertise. In Political Legitimacy, Science and Social Authority: Knowledge and Action in Liberal Democracies, ed. M. Heazle and J. Kane, 17–37. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2017. Who Are You Calling ‘Anti-science’? How Science Serves Social and Political Agendas. The Conversation, July 31. https://theconversation.com/who-are-you-calling-anti-science-how-science-serves-social-and-political-agendas-74755. [Reprinted in The Conversation Yearbook 2017: 50 Standout Articles from Australia’s Top Thinkers. Edited by John Watson. The Conversation Trust; 66–71]
  19. Epstein, Steven. 1996. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fleck, Ludwik. 2008. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Translated by Thaddeus J. Trenn and Fred Bradley. Repr. 11. Aufl (First published in German in 1935). Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Franklin, Allan, and Harry Collins. 2016. Two Kinds of Case Study and a New Agreement. In The Philosophy of Historical Case Studies, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, ed. T. Sauer and R. Scholl, 95–121. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Fuller, Steve. 2016. Embrace the Inner Fox: Post-Truth as the STS Symmetry Principle Universalized. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, December 25.Google Scholar
  23. Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the Post-Normal Age. Futures 25 (7): 739–755.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gross, Paul R., and N. Levitt. 1998. Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science. Johns Hopkins Paperbacks ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gross, Paul R., Norman Levitt, and Martin W. Lewis, eds. 1997. The Flight from Science and Reason. Baltimore, MD and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hilgartner, Stephen. 2000. Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama, Writing Science. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Holton, G. 1978. The Scientific Imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Irwin, Alan. 1995. Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise, and Sustainable Development, Environment and Society. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policy-Makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Jasanoff, Sheila, and Hilton R. Simmet. 2017. No Funeral Bells: Public Reason in a “Post-Truth” Age. Social Studies of Science 47 (5): 751–770.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717731936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  32. Koertge, Noretta, ed. 2000. A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths about Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Latour, Bruno. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. ———. 2003. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. 11th Print. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, Sage Library of Social Research, vol. 80. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  37. MacKenzie, Donald A. 1981. Statistics in Britain, 1865–1930. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Martin, Emily. 1991. The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles. Signs 16 (3): 485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Medawar, Peter. 1967. The Art of the Soluble. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  40. Merton, Robert King. 1973. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Mol, Annemarie. 2003. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Oudshoorn, Nelly. 1994. Beyond the Natural Body: An Archeology of Sex Hormones. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Popper, Karl R. 2002. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Salter, Liora. 1988. Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of Standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shapin, Steven. 1979. The Politics of Observation: Cerebral Anatomy and Social Interests in the Edinburgh Phrenology Disputes. The Sociological Review 27 (May): 139–178.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1979.tb00061.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. ———. 2007. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. 4th Print. Science and Its Conceptual Foundations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Sismondo, Sergio. 2017a. Post-Truth? Social Studies of Science 47 (1): 3–6.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717692076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. ———. 2017b. Casting a Wider Net: A Reply to Collins, Evans and Weinel. Social Studies of Science 47 (4): 587–592.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717721410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sokal, Alan D., and Jean Bricmont. 1999. Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science. 1st paperback ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  50. Wynne, Brian. 1992. Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science. Public Understanding of Science 1 (3): 281–304.  https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry Collins
    • 1
    Email author
  • Robert Evans
    • 1
  • Darrin Durant
    • 2
  • Martin Weinel
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Social SciencesCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
  2. 2.Historical & Philosophical StudiesUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations