Making History

Social Studies of Science

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 459-480

  Bohlin, Ingemar ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84992904178     PISSN: 03063127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/030631299029003007     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Joseph Agassi, ‘Towards an Historiography of Science’, History and Theory, Beiheft 2 (1963)
2. Helge Kragh, An Introduction to the Historiography of Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).
3. He might have added, though, that he is himself author of an excellent article taking that form, in which some of the key points of this book are argued in briefer fashion: see Jan Golinski, ‘The Theory of Practice and the Practice of Theory: Sociological Approaches in the History of Science’, Isis, Vol. 81 (1990), 492–505.
4. Andrew Pickering, The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1995).
5. Mario Biagioli, Galileo, Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1993).
6. Sharon Traweek, Lifetimes and Beamtimes: The World of High-Energy Physicists (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988).
7. Steven Shapin, ‘Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle's Literary Technology’, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 14, No. 4 (November 1984), 481–519.
8. Martin J.S. Rudwick, The Great Devonian Controversy: The Shaping of Scientific Knowledge among Gentlemanly Specialists (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1985).
9. Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985).
10. This aspect of Biagioli's reconstruction of the case of Galileo coincides with Steve Woolgar's repudiation of a concept he calls ‘positionism’: see Steve Woolgar, ‘The Very Idea of Social Epistemology: What Prospects for a Truly Radical “Radically Naturalized Epistemology”?’, Inquiry, Vol. 34 (1991), 377–89, at 380.
11. David Bloor, ‘Wittgenstein and Mannheim on the Sociology of Mathematics’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4 (1973), 173–91, at 173
12. Bloor, Knowledge and Social Imagery (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn, 1991), at 7.
13. See Michael Lynch, Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
14. Incidentally, this interpretation of symmetry has never been accepted by its originator: see Barry Barnes, David Bloor and John Henry, Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis (London: Athlone Press, 1996), 13–16, 73–77, for a recent criticism.
15. Bruno Latour, ‘Technology is Society Made Durable’, in John Law (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination (London: Routledge, 1981), 103–131
16. See Steve Woolgar, ‘The Turn to Technology in Social Studies of Science’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Winter 1991), 20–50
17. Grint and Woolgar, The Machine at Work: Technology, Work and Organization (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997).
18. Langdon Winner and Rob Kling have both debated the merits of Woolgar and Grint's position: see Langdon Winner, ‘Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding it Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Summer 1993), 362–378
19. Two instances of the strong definition, both appearing in Barnes' work, are the following: ‘Nothing in the nature of things, or the nature of language, or the nature of past usage, determines how we employ, or correctly employ, our terms’, Barry Barnes, T.S. Kuhn and Social Science (London: Macmillan, 1982), 30
20. ‘Concepts cannot determine their next instance of use. They lack inherent properties’, Barnes, ‘On the Conventional Character of Knowledge and Cognition’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 11 (1981), 303–33, at 330.
21. A far more elaborate argument along these lines is offered in Chapter V of Ingemar Bohlin, Through Malthusian Specs? A Study in the Philosophy of Science Studies, with Special Reference to the Theory and Ideology of Darwin Historiography (unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Theory of Science, Goteborg University, 1995).
22. Trevor Pinch, ‘Strata Various’, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 16, No. 4 (November 1986), 705–713
23. Harry Collins, ‘Pumps, Rock and Reality’, The Sociological Review, Vol. 35 (1987), 819–828
24. James Moore, ‘Metabiographical Reflections on Charles Darwin’, in Michael Shortland and Richard Yeo (eds), Telling Lives in Science: Essays on Scientific Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 267–81, at 280. These are reflections on the writing of Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin (London: Michael Joseph, 1991).
25. H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago, IL:The University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn, 1992), 188.