Sociology of Science and Scientific Knowledge - JSM016

• Title: Sociology of Science and Scientific Knowledge
• Guaranteed by: Department of Sociology (23-KS)
• Faculty: Faculty of Social Sciences
• Actual: from 2016 to 2016
• Semester: winter
• E-Credits: 8
• Examination process: winter s.:
• Hours per week, examination: winter s.:0/2, Ex [HT]
• Capacity: unknown / 14 (14)
• Min. number of students: unlimited
• 4EU+: no
• Virtual mobility / capacity: no
• State of the course: taught
• Language: English
• Teaching methods: full-time
• Teaching methods: full-time
• Note: course can be enrolled in outside the study plan; enabled for web enrollment; priority enrollment if the course is part of the study plan
• Guarantor: Mgr. Jan Maršálek, Ph.D.
• Teacher(s): Mgr. Jan Maršálek, Ph.D.

Annotation

Last update: Jana Vojanová (09.09.2021)

“Sociology and Uncontroversial Science: the Fomite Transmission of Covid-19”


The growth and success of the modern sociology of science is closely related to the study of scientific controversies. The works of H. Collins (1975, 1981, 1985), M. J. S. Rudwick’s book (1985), and S. Shapin and S. Schaffer’s study (1985) are widely regarded as having helped to constitute the “new” sociology of science, which brought the social studies of science to the center stage of sociology more generally. From the methodological point of view, scientific controversies have proven to be a richly exploitable situation in which the internal organization – or rather the process of organizing – of science can be comfortably observed. In contrast to what already established scientific facts suggest, it has been shown that the laws of pure reason do not govern science as exclusively as one might believe. Consequently, scientific controversies have become for many scholars the “strategic research site” the need for which was stipulated by the classic representative of the “old” sociology of science, R. K. Merton (Merton 1963).


When such privileged epistemological position is ascribed to scientific controversies, how to deal then with uncontroversial science? The still evolving case of the thesis according to which Covid-19 may spread via contaminated surfaces (called fomites) will provide us with abundant study material.

Course completion requirements

Last update: Jana Vojanová (09.09.2021)

Course requirements and assignments

  

1. Active participation in the class, class attendance is required

2. Oral presentation

3. Term paper

 

This is a Master level research seminar, the attendants are expected to be familiar with general sociological literature.

No training in biology, virology or epidemiology is presumed.

Syllabus

Last update: doc. Mgr. Martin Hájek, Ph.D. (03.12.2019)

1. The "old" sociology of science and the idea of "strategic research sites"

 

10/10/2019, we meet at 5.30 pm: Robert Merton, “Multiple Discoveries as Strategic Research Site” in: The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London 1973, pp. 267-280 + "The Neglect of the Sociology of Science", ibidem, pp. 210-220. 

Facultative: Robert Merton, “Notes on Problem-Finding in Sociology.” In: Merton, R. – Broom, L. – Cottrell, L. S. (eds.), Sociology Today. Problems and Prospects. Vol. I. Harper Torchbooks, New York - Evanston, 1965, pp. ix-xxxiv.

 

2. The “new” sociology of science: scientific controversies as a “strategic research site”

 

Dispute over existence

Harry M. Collins, “The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or the Replication of Experiments in Physics”, Sociology, 9 (2), 1975, pp. 205-224.

Harry M. Collins, "Son of Seven Sexes: The social Destruction of a Physical Phenomenon", Social Studies of Science, Vol. 11, No. 1, Feb. 1981, pp. 33-62.  

Bruno Latour, "Pasteur and Pouchet: The Heterogenesis of the History of Science" in M. Serres (ed.), A History of Scientific Thought. Elements of a History of Science. Blackwell 1995, pp. 526-555.

 

Facultative: Harry M. Collins, “The Mystery of Perception and Order” in: H. M. Collins, Changing Order. Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. The University of Chicago Press 1985 (1992), pp. 5-28.

 

Dispute over method

Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life, chapter II: "Seeing and Believing: The Experimental Production of Pneumatic Facts", Princeton University Press, Princeton 2011 (2^nd ed.), pp. 22-79.

 

3. Scientific controversies and other “research sites”

 

Bruno Latour, Science in Action, chapter II: "Laboratories". Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA), pp. 63-99

Karin Knorr Cetina, “The Couch, the Cathedral, and the Laboratory: On the Relationship between Experiment and Laboratory in Science” in A. Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture. University of Chicago Press, 1992, pp. 113-138. 

Donna Haraway, “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1988, pp. 575-599.

 

Facultative: Karin Knorr Cetina, “Laboratory Studies: The Cultural Approach to the Study of Science” in: S. Jasanoff - G. E. Markle - J. C. Petersen - T. Pinch, Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (revised edition), Sage 1995, pp. 140-166.

Facultative: Emily Martin, “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles.” Signs, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1991, pp. 485-501.

 

4. The status of scientific controversies in the dynamics of science

 

Andrew Pickering, “Constraints on Controversy: The Case of the Magnetic Monopole.” Social Studies of Science, vol. 11, 1981, pp. 63-93. 

Michael Gordin, The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe. University of Chicago Press, 2013 (one or two chapters, TBD).

Dominique Raynaud, “Al-Samarquandi’s Native Theory of Controversies: An Essay on the Negotiation of Truth.” In: D. Raynaud, Scientific Controversies. A Socio-Historical Perspective on the Advancement of Science. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick – London 2015, pp. 284-314.