Fortunately, his allegations can be refuted in far fewer words. Fish implies that I am opposed to all sociology of science, and that I fail to understand the elementary distinction between sociology of science and science. I have no objection whatsoever to sociology of science, which at its best can clarify the important political and economic issues surrounding science and technology. Our theories about the laws of nature are social constructions. The goal of science is for the latter to approximate as closely as possible the former.
Fish seems to agree.
I would nevertheless argue that there are no laws in nature, there are only laws in society. Laws are things that men and women make, and that they can change. The fact remains that they published an article saying exactly this in its first two paragraphs. And despite my repeated requests during the editorial process for substantive comments, suggestions and criticisms, none were ever received, just an acceptance letter. Suffice it to say that there is a long and honorable tradition, going back at least to Jonathan Swift, of truth-telling through satire.