Abstract
My conclusions about the work of the ethnomethodologists of science — whom, for brevity and in accordance with the verbal though not so far the published practice of other sociologists, I shall call the ethnos — are like their conclusions about the work of scientists they have studied. As they typically conclude that natural scientists misunderstand the nature of their own enterprise, or at least in their publications so write as (perhaps unwittingly) to conceal or even mislead about it, so I conclude that ethnos do. They conclude that it is mistaken to think that scientists discover about independently existing objects truths that are not artefacts of their own social and political performances. I conclude that it is mistaken to think that the ethnos have discovered or revealed such truths about scientists. I conclude in particular that they have not discovered that this traditional view of scientists is mistaken.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Barnes, B. (1981) ‘On the ‘Hows’ and ‘Whys’ of Cultural Change’ (Response to Woolgar), Social Studies of Science 11, 481–98.
Cocke, W. J., Disney, M. J. and Taylor, D. J. (1969) ‘Discovery of Optical Signals from Pulsar NP 0532’, Nature 221 (Feb. 8).
Collins, H. M. (1981) ‘What is TRASP? The Radical Programme as a Methodological Imperative’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11, 215–224.
Collins, H. M. (1982) ‘Special Relativism — The Natural Attitude’, Social Studies of Science 12, 139–143.
Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M. and Livingston, E. (1981) ‘The Work of a Discovering Science Construed with Materials from the Optically Discovered Pulsar’, Philosophy of Social Science 11, 131–158.
Horton, R. (1967) ‘African Traditional Thought and Western Science’, Africa 37; rp. (abridged) in Wilson, B. (ed.), Rationality, Oxford. Blackwell.
Horton, R. (1982) ‘Tradition and Modernity Revisited’, in Hollis, M. & Lukes, S. (eds.), Rationality and Relativism, Oxford: Blackwell; pp. 201–260.
Latour, B. and Woolgar S. (1979) Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Mulkay, M. J. (1981) ‘Action and Belief or Scientific Discourse? A Possible Way of Ending Intellectual Vassalage in Social Studies of Science’, Philosophy of Social Science 11, 163–171.
Mulkay, M. J. and Gilbert, G. N. (1982) ‘What is the Ultimate Question? Some Remarks in Defence of the Analysis of Scientific Discourse’, Social Studies of Science 12, 309–319.
Prior, A. N. (1971) Objects of Thought, Oxford: Clarendon.
Strawson, P. F. (1950) ‘Truth’, Proceedings of the Aristotelean Society, Supplementary Vol. XXIV.
Woolgar, S. (1981a) ‘Interests and Explanation in the Social Study of Science’, Social Studies of Science 11, 365–394.
Woolgar, S. (1981b) ‘Critique and Criticism: Two Readings of Ethnomethodology’, Social Studies of Science 11, 504–514.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1988 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fox, J.F. (1988). It’s All in the Day’s Work: A Study of the Ethnomethodology of Science. In: Nola, R. (eds) Relativism and Realism in Science. Australasian Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2877-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2877-0_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7795-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-2877-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive