Download Epistemological Chicken

STS 2411 - Epistemological Chicken
Wed. 20th, 2:30-5:30pm, TEL 1004
Introduction
- STS “broad tent” discipline, varying methodologies, conflict
- Complex methodological issues, encounters between the principals
The Argument
- Sociologists can alternate, switch between different frames of reference
- Claim: alternation not common outside of sociology:
“This ability, which seems to the sociologist to be little more than applied
common sense, is surprisingly narrowly distributed within society.” 301
-
-
Sociologists can “meta-alternate”, switch out of theoretical to more practical
frames of reference (e.g. to catch a bus, pay a mortgage)
Newer schools of STS have given up on meta-alternation, committed to an
“escalating game of skepticism” 302
Reflexivity and the “French School”, former leads to “relativist regress”, latter
leads to the dissolution of the divide between human and non-human actors
Symmetry principle has a history in sociology:
o Merton: science and other social institutions should be treated
symmetrically
o SSK: true and false claims should be treated symmetrically
o Reflexivity theory: both analysts and the subject analyzed need to be
treated symmetrically
o Actor-Network Theory: humans and non-humans need to be treated
symmetrically
SSK: validity of methodological relativism, not a argument about truth per se, an
argument about how we are to study truth claims
Discourse analysis: SSK is a social construction
Reflexivity studies: questions the very ability of an author to assert claims or
construct narratives
Reflexivity arguments ultimately “go nowhere”, and should be abandoned
Reflexivity tries to address the problem of meaning (“the Problem” - determining
if our representations match reality), unsolvable
Focus on use, not meaning, alternate between epistemological stances, choose the
one that “gets the work done”
Scientists natural realists, objects unproblematic
SSK scholars social realists, social entities unproblematic or real
o “We believe, however, that the big job of sorting out the relationship
between cultural enterprises has to be done from the level of social
realism. The work can be done from no other level.” 309
-
“French School” (Actor Network Theory or ANT) dissolves all dichotomies, all
objects, both human and non-human as actors in the networks under study
-
ANT gives back authority to scientists, retrogressive
ANT treats objects like actors, agency, ability to “push back”, like natural realism,
objects “push back” against scientists to reveal truth
o “If nonhumans are actants, then we need a way of determining their
power. This is the business of scientists and technologists; it takes us
directly back to the scientists’ conventional and prosaic accounts of the
world from which we escaped in the early 1970’s” 322
-
Reflexivity theory is mistaken as it leaves us with nothing to say, ANT is
mistaken as it gives authority to scientists
General Observations
- Collins and Yearly motivations:
o To establish who has the authority to challenge science
o To defend the fundamental claims of SSK (symmetry and social realism)
o To reclaim the mantle of “radical”, appropriated by reflexivity and later
ANT, call them “conservative”.“Moralizing psycho-talk”, “failure of
nerve”, “lack of determination”, etc.
o Larger context: “return to practice” in science studies, realism
Questions
- Is alternation a particularly sociological achievement?
-
What is the distinction between alternation and meta-alternation?
-
Are scientists really naïve realists?
-
Collins and Yearly critique reflexivity theory as they claim it “goes nowhere”,
what exactly does this mean?
-
Collins and Yearly claim that scientists are the experts about nature, and that
sociologists are the experts about society. Is a situation like this equal from the
perspective of authority?
-
Collins and Yearly reject reflexivity and ANT as they lead to unsatisfactory
results. What is the difference between this sort of argument and a reductio ad
absurdum, a traditional philosophical argument that rejects premises due to
absurd conclusions derived from those premises?
-
Appeal to social realism as it “gets the work done” to solve the problem of
reference, is this a satisfactory appeal?
-
Collins and Yearly argue that ANT, by making nonhumans actants, requires us to
determine their power, which is the task of scientists. Why just scientists?
-
Does SSK also rely on scientific accounts of the natural world, like ANT?
-
Isn’t symmetry just another attempt to claim objectivity or neutrality?
-
Does SSK fall prey to the same objections that were used against positivism?