* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Epistemological Chicken
Survey
Document related concepts
Frankfurt School wikipedia , lookup
Social Darwinism wikipedia , lookup
Sociology of terrorism wikipedia , lookup
Social constructionism wikipedia , lookup
Symbolic interactionism wikipedia , lookup
Social rule system theory wikipedia , lookup
History of sociology wikipedia , lookup
Social group wikipedia , lookup
Development theory wikipedia , lookup
Structural functionalism wikipedia , lookup
Sociology of knowledge wikipedia , lookup
Sociological theory wikipedia , lookup
Postdevelopment theory wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
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?