Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T04:29:31.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical Notice: David Bloor's Knowledge and Social Imagery (Second Edition)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Steve Fuller
Steve Fuller*
Affiliation:
Center for the Study of Science in Society, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When Bloor's Knowledge and Social Imagery was first published in 1976, it was not the first time that a “strong programme” in the sociology of knowledge was treated to a hostile reception by philosophers. But never before has such a dialectically unproductive encounter with philosophers led to such a methodologically fruitful response, for, when an array of positivist, historicist, Popperian, and realist philosophers argued against Bloor and his Edinburgh colleagues that normative accounts of scientific rationality could not be refuted by empirical accounts of what scientists do (see Brown 1984), an entire line of research was launched that sought to explain science without having to make reference to the philosophers' cherished norms. This is the field now known as Science and Technology Studies (STS). Although STS is normally taken to be intellectually centered in sociology, its main practitioners are just as likely to have been drawn from philosophy and the natural sciences (as in the case of the original Edinburgh School) as from the social sciences proper. The unmistakable mark of Bloor's influence is that, unlike the sociology of science most recognizable to sociologists (e.g., Merton 1973), the STS practitioner is committed to studying science in the same spirit of analytic detachment and epistemic neutrality as she would any other aspect of society. In practice, this has amounted to a preference for methods that incorporate “ethnographic distance” (e.g., Latour and Woolgar [1979] 1986), although in recent years theoretical debate has increasingly focused on the appropriate attitude that STS practitioners should adopt toward science, given their findings to date (see Pickering 1992, Fuller 1992b). I will return to this debate at the end of this essay.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 158 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I would like to thank David Edge, Barry Barnes, and David Bloor for inviting me to speak to the Science Studies Unit, Edinburgh, which enabled me to get a clearer sense of the philosophical horizons of the Strong Programme. Also, my thanks to the anonymous referee for this journal.

‡

Send reprint requests to the author, Center for the Study of Science in Society, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0247, USA.

References

Barnes, B. (1976), “Natural Rationality: A Neglected Concept in the Social Sciences”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 6: 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, B. and Bloor, D. (1982), “Relativism, Rationalism, and the Sociology of Knowledge”, in Hollis, M. and Lukes, S. (ed.), Rationality and Relativism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 21–47.Google Scholar
Bloor, D. (1983), Wittgenstein: A Social Theory of Knowledge. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloor, D. ([1976] 1991), Knowledge and Social Imagery. 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brown, J. R. (ed.) (1984), Scientific Rationality: The Sociological Turn. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchland, P. (1989), The Neurocomputational Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Elster, J. (1979), Logic and Society. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (1986), “Unnatural Attitudes: Realist and Instrumentalist Attachments to Science”, Mind 95: 149–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (1981), “Methodological Solipsism Considered as a Research Strategy in Cognitive Psychology”, in Representations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 225–253.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. and Pylyshyn, Z. (1981), “How Direct is Visual Perception?” Cognition 9: 139–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuller, S. (1987), “Towards Objectivism and Relativism”, Social Epistemology 1: 351–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, S. (1988), Social Epistemology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Fuller, S. (1991), “Naturalized Epistemology Sublimated: Rapprochement Without the Ruts”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 22: 277–293.Google Scholar
Fuller, S. (1992a), Philosophy of Science and Its Discontents. 2d ed. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Fuller, S. (1992b), Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the End of Knowledge: The Coming of Science and Technology Studies. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979), The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Giere, R. (1988), Explaining Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. (1989), “Scientific Rationality as Instrumental Rationality”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 20: 377–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. (1983), Representing and Intervening. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1988), Science as a Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1984), The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.) (1970), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. ([1979] 1986), Laboratory Life. 2d ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Meja, V. and Stehr, N. (eds.) (1990), Knowledge and Politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Merton, R. (1973), The Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pickering, A. (ed.) (1992), Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1985), “Epistemology Naturalized”, in Kornblith, H. (ed.), Naturalizing Epistemology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 15–30.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. (1979), Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Roth, P. (1987), Meaning and Method in the Social Sciences. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Rudwick, M. (1985), The Great Devonian Controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, H. (1989), “Philosophy of Science Naturalized? Some Problems with Giere's Naturalism”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 20: 365–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. ([1922] 1955), Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Woldring, H. (1986), Karl Mannheim. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Woolgar, S. (1981), “Interests and Explanation in the Social Study of Science”, Social Studies of Science 11: 365–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar