Talk:Science studies

message: This article is very short, and hardly describes anything about how science as a social enterprise works. It's at least got to start with peer review, and should cover how explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge about techniques are dispersed throughout the community, the incentives to do science (economics, the reputation system, the tenure carrot), standards for behavior (and examples of violations), the peculiarly open nature of the enterprise, and its relationship to other social system, like government, the economy, and culture. -- Beland 02:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the article be about Science studies as a subject/discipline/approach or about one particular set of conclusions about how science works? I think the former—I don't think you'll ever come up with a model of "how science as a social enterprise works" that will really be representative of the gamut of even the most popular scholars on the subject. Additionally, it looks like you are just describing 20th century scientific enterprise at best. And Latour at the very least would object to any categorization which contains "economy," "government" and "culture" as entities independent from themselves, much less science! ;) --Fastfission 02:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote for a description of "science studies" as a research area; you'd need a book to do what Beland suggests--it's a good suggestion, but Ziman has already done it! Bryan 00:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: I've tried to be a little more specific about SS's interdisciplinary history, making it clear that SS emerges from SSK (among other things) rather than SSK being a subfield within SS. This also allowed me to free the names of Kuhn and Foucault from any direct association with these large background contexts, respecting their canonical status in many different fields. I'll be re-reading the whole entry and fixing the sentences as I add things over the next few weeks.--Peloria 05:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some changes

message: The article is full of nonsense and needs to be cleaned up. Sample pompous nonsense : "Science studies is best understood as a moment in a steadily widening conversation, in which scholars with interests in the social, historical, and philosophical analysis of science and technology have achieved a succession of wider integrations."   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.214.62 (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It borders on intellectual imposturing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.148.38 (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsense

message: I'd like to hear from contributors about changing the name of this article. I believe science and technology studies (STS) is a more inclusive and more accurate name than science studies, for the following reasons:
1.  There is a thriving multidisciplinary research area that self-identifies itself as science and technology studies (Janasoff et al., 2001). Doctoral programs that specifically use the phrase "science and technology studies" to describe the degree are offered at Cornell Univ., Georgia Institute of Technology, Gothenburg Univ. (Sweden), Lancaster Univ. (UK),  Virginia Polytechnic Institute, University College (London), and several other institutions. Roughly 25 universities offer bachelor's degrees using this nomenclature (the most up-to-date [list of STS programs] is maintained by the University of Virginia's Department of Science, Technology, and Society).
2.  The term "science studies" is sometimes used inclusively to refer to STS, particularly in U.K. (see, e.g., [Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University], but the term "science studies" is more closely associated with the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK). There are numerous science studies departments that place little or no emphasis on the study of technology, despite the growing evidence that the two are so closely intertwined that they cannot be studied in isolation (see, e.g., Latour 1989).
3.  STS programs and organizations (such as the Society for Social Studies of Science, or 4S) view STS as an umbrella term, one that encompasses a variety of subdisciplines, including the following (minimally):  sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK), sociology and anthropology of science and technology, science and engineering ethics, science and engineering policy, history of science, history of technology, and philosophy of science and technology. STS departments reflect this heterogeneity, yet their faculty generally self-identify as STS scholars.
4.  The most prominent professional organization in STS, Society for Social Studies of Science, stresses the following on its Web site: "Society for Social Studies of Science is the oldest and largest scholarly association devoted to understanding science and technology. While as many of us [now] study technology as science, we continue to use our original name" (see [About the Society].
To sum up: 
1. Remove the redirect from the science and technology studies page and move the pertinent sections of this article there.
2. This page should portray science studies as part of STS, and link to SSK.
Bryan 13:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While that is possible.  it is probably best to just to split out sts from this page because it is not the same thing.  once that is done, then one would use one article to make clear the high and low churches...  but there is not enough content differentiation right now as far as i know to require two articles, but if people did want to make those articles and then proceed to wikify them appropriately throughout the science and technology articles, then you'd be fine.  Buridan
* Well... I think this discussion proves that there really are two fields (or two ways of seeing the same field): science studies and science and technology studies. I think there should  be two articles, related as follows: science studies (SSK + history/philosophy of science), science and technology studies (science studies + history/sociology of technology). The articles should explain that, when people talk about science studies or STS, they might -- or might not -- be referring to the same thing. There still are science studies departments -- UCSD, for instance, that don't do much with technology.  To clarify something that is at work here, I think: let me add that STS also refers to "science, technology, and society," which is most closely associated with a "humanizing the engineers" movement in US academia starting in the 1960s; the idea was to bring engineers into closer contact with the humanities, etc.  Most of these programs have now migrated to science and technology studies. What's more, there's a significant K-12 movement called science-and-technology-studies (yes, the hyphens are part of the name!) that is trying to improve science education by starting with important social issues and proceeding to science as a "need to know" exercise. SO ... I propose to write two articles, science studies and science and technology studies. I might add that we need related articles on science, technology, and society; history and philosophy of science (HPS); science, engineering, and public policy (SEPP); history of technology; and anthropology of technology. Unless someone objects, I'll do what I've proposed (although I can't do so immediately...)  Bryan 01:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Science and technology studies, not Science studies

message: The preceding proposal has survived three weeks without comment, so I'm going to proceed with my proposed changes.  Please help! Bryan 23:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A little more development.  Bryan 22:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A Start

message: of the following sentence:  "Previously, successful scientific theories were attributed to having discovered the truth of the matter, while failed theories were attributed to the bias introduced by social factors, such as religious belief or racism."  This strikes me as a straw man argument that does not honestly represent the kind of philosophy of science that the Strong Programme is intended to oppose or supercede.  For instance, the Popperian philosophy of science never fell into the error of believing that the "truth" could be discovered (indeed, it holds the opposite to be true); and the Popperian point of view, whatever its flaws, was extremely influential for much of the 20th century, i.e. it was previous to the Strong Programme.  And it appears to me that attributing the failure of a theory to social factors is purely postmodern.  For instance, even if we accept that the value that causes us to hold quantum mechanics as higher in value than Newtonian mechanics is a social value, none of the *classical* philosophers of science held the failure of Newtonian mechanics to account for the discrete spectra of atoms to be due to social factors.  Thus, as a description of a type of philosophy of science that contrasts with the Strong Programme, the quoted sentence strikes me as unclear at best, and probably just plain wrong.  67.186.28.212 04:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and there you would be slightly off target.  It isn't about good or bad science.  it is about contextualizing the history and progress of science and thus finding the the origins of scientific theory.   it is not 'postmodern' either.  the strong programme uses social science to resolve what used to be considered a philosophical problem.  if you read it as a popperian, you will get confused because popper is fixated on defining what is or is not scientific, amongst other things.   he is working on a principle of exclusion for science.   the strong programme on the other hand is describing science as it exists.    --Buridan 12:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying that the "good/bad science" distinction is one used by the strong programme at all, but as I understood it the principle of symmetry, simply put, is that if scientists usually invoke social factors to explain things that go "wrong" in science, you should also be able to invoke social factors to explain things that go "right" in science too. In either case it is somewhat of a straw man when put up against Popper qua Popper but it is, I think, not an entirely unfair way of characterizing an extremely common way of discussion the effect of social factors on science. --Fastfission 15:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification or correction, please

message: This article is so unbelievably pompous, one hardly knows where to begin. --Deglr6328 05:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: pompous?   perhaps you can point us toward where it is being pompous instead of say, just flaming us.--Buridan 11:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're not going to bother to even organize your grievances about the article content, then I fail to see why you are bothering to complain. Surely you have better ways to spend your time on here. --Fastfission 16:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never understood this 'wikimantra' that criticism of aticles is basically verboten unless the person criticising also fixes the article. Just because articles CAN be altered by anyone doesn't mean anyone making critical observations must do so.--Deglr6328 03:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't made any critical observations, you've just made vague and unspecific complaints. And you've insinuated that the other editors on this article are interested in "pseudointellectual pomposity". I fail to see how this isn't just trolling. --Fastfission 12:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  K. bye. --Deglr6328 04:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: wow

message: I have two critiques with this article.
1. Too many abbreviations.  In my eyes this gives the impression of "pomposity" that I think Degir was referencing.  I recommend elimination of moar of them... especially those that are only once used in this article.
2. Two many red links.  Again, it has the same effect... like "Science studies" has its own vocab that only the initiated can understand.  The way to fix this is to delink or to create articles.  (I'm not saying other Wikipedia articles aren't similar.)
I think I can fix in a bit.  I don't know anything about the red-links so I can just delink them for now.
Thoughts?  Thanks!  --M a s 01:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done...  Could someone please expand the "principal of symmetry" or determine if it's worth its own article?  Thanks!  --M a s 23:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two (stylistic) critiques 

message: Some time ago a group of editors set up a "work in progress" page (at Talk:Physics/wip) to hammer out a consensus for the Physics article, which for too long had been in an unstable state. Discussion of the lead for the article has taken a great deal of time and thousands of words. The definitional and philosophical foundations seem to cause most headaches; but progress has been made. Why not review some of the proposals for the lead material that people are putting forward, or put forward your own, or simply join the discussion? The more contributors the better, for a consensus.
Update at 13 November: Concrete proposals have now been put forward, arising from recent discussion aimed at producing a stable and consensual lead section for the Physics article. We have set up a straw poll, for comments on the proposals. Why not drop in at Talk:Physics/wip, and have your say? The proper definition of physics, and the place of physics among the sciences, may well be of interest to editors who contribute here. – Noetica 23:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The review of [[Physics]] continues at [[Talk:Physics/wip]]

message: This article aswell as its eponymous :Category:Science studies seems to have been categorized in a very confused manner. Could we discuss the correct categories here? We should go by the article Brad7777 (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, which categories should be added to :Category:Science studies (if any)? Brad7777 (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Which categories should in fact be subcats of :Category:Science studies Brad7777 (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Which categories should be related categories to :Category:Science studies Brad7777 (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused categorization 

message: This article seems overly reliant on citing "Social studies of volcanology: knowledge generation and expert advice on active volcanoes" by Donovan et al., which is currently the first item, and mostly frequently cited item, in the reference list. In many of the places in this article where Donovan et al. are cited, a more general text about science studies (instead of this text that is specifically about social studies of volcanology) would be more appropriate. Biogeographist (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skewed citation pattern in this article 

message: I found a non-Marxist source that puts the Marxist scholars of science mentioned in  into broader historical context:
See especially chapter two, "The social study of science before Kuhn" (and especially pages 43ff.) by Stephen Turner, who is not a Marxist but nevertheless discusses most of the Marxists mentioned in the edit in question. Turner puts these Marxists in a much broader historical narrative that doesn't start or end with the Marxists; however, Turner basically ends with Kuhn, omitting much of the work since the 1970s that we associate with more recent science studies.
There is also an important mention in chapter 26, "The commercialization of science and the response of STS" by Philip Mirowski and Esther-Mirjam Sent: "Close on the heels of the enunciation of the Hessen thesis in the 1930s and the subsequent Cold War anti-Marxian backlash against it, most appeals to economic structures as conditioning factors in the production of science simply dropped out of postwar theoretical discourse within science studies" (page 637). Mirowski & Sent cite some secondary sources regarding this "anti-Marxian backlash", including William McGucken's book Scientists, Society and the State: The Social Relations of Science Movement in Great Britain, 1931–1947 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1984) and a couple of more recent journal articles. Biogeographist (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey. Nice job Biogeographist! Yes, this is exactly the type of source we ought to be using in trying to improve the article. GMGtalk 22:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Thank you for those sources. --ProfZeit (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: When brackets are probably used in a sentence, they do not change the meaning of the sentence. The two instances where brackets are used give a perceived bias. 
Toribaragiola (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brackets 

message: I perceive a significant overlap between Science Studies and Nature of Science education as described. e.g. by McComas (2020). It may be helpful to reference Nature of Science education also in this article. 
Book title: Nature of Science in Science Instruction: Rationales and Strategies
ISBN: 978-3-030-57239-6
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6_3
Jjeroen (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature of Science education