Talk:Science and technology studies

message: Concerning the section "Deliberative Democracy", I recommend to add Habermas to the sources and to bring in the concept of the "spiral of silence" in regard to minority viewpoints.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harald Schweiger (talk • contribs) 11:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Deliberative Democracy

message: Please expand.Bryan 00:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Expanded and edited. 71.48.150.76 18:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It's a Start

message: *The "blind/empty" quote here attributed to Hansen I have previously seen (rather prominently) attributed to Imre Lakatos. Can we double-check this one way or the author? 
*Is Kuhn really the father of mixing history and phil. of sci.? That seems like somewhat of an arbitrary line to draw to me (certainly the work done in the 1930s was a mixture of both history and philosophy of science)?
--Fastfission 02:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ssk is closer to sociology of knowledge, i think.--Buridan 13:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A few questions

message: As an article about an academic subject, shouldn't it list at some examples of STS programs?  Or at the very least, provide a direct link to such a list?  Expecting that readers will navigate away from Wikipedia and onto the STS Wiki is probably unrealistic. Fcendejas 23:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the problem then becomes one of neutrality, are you going to list them all?  or only ones you choose?   if they are interested in degree programs, i bet they will go to the stswiki.  The two that you chose aren't really even of sts.  There is a difference between science and technology studies and science and technology in society, with different histories and movements.  So until there can be some sort of neutral representation, I suggest we don't need them. --Buridan 00:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the founder, funder, etc., of STS Wiki, and as far as I'm  concerned, anything that gets STS information out to the public is a Good Thing.  If you visit STS Wiki, though, I think you'll find that there are so many programs that, even if there were just one-line links, you'd add something like 2x - 3x to the length of the page... As for whether it's realistic for people to navigate away from Wikipedia, people with special interests in STS will be motivated to do so. STS Wiki offers all kinds of info that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia - in other words info that wouldn't of interest to the general reader (like what the best textbooks are, etc.)  Bryan 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  list of academic programs 

message: Way too many acronyms on this page.  I'll take some of them off.
Pretty POV in favor of its discipline.  I'll remove "vibrants" while keeping "new" and "rapidly growing."  --209.128.81.201 21:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs work 

message: sinProposal withdrawn: I am proposing that this article be merged with Technology and society.   01:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose This article is about the academic discipline itself, not the subject of that discipline. I would not oppose a merge of Technology and Society into this article, but it might be too big for that. Nick 02:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response: Separating the discipline from the study is like saying the field of civil engineering is separate from the academic discipline of civil engineering.  And merging "Technology and Society" into this article is like saying that the academic discipline of civil engineering encompasses civil engineering, when it is vice-versa.  Nonetheless, I do agree that the size of this article may be too large to merge into the other, so I am withdrawing my proposal.  SteveMc 02:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose sts is broader than technology and society. in fact, technology and society probably needs to be merged into a larger article 'technology studies' which would still be a smaller category than sts. --|Buridan]] 14:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response: Since User:Buridan wants to maintain this discussion, I will respond:  There seems to be a confusion between life and the study of life.  In my paradigm of life, facts about life are discovered in its study.  As such, science is about the study of life, science is not life.  Consider, let's say, plants: it is nonsense to somehow say that biology is plants, when biology is the study of plants (by definition).  Would we say that sociology is society?  I hope not.  Nor would we say that geology is earth, when geology is the study earth. This proposed taxonomy is confusing because it states that the science (study), a man-made activity, is the phenomenon (technology and society), not man-made, under study.  Sure I agree that STS includes the study of technology and society (among many other topics).  But, STS is only the "study" of that relationship, not the relationship itself. Therefore, life (technology, science, and society) should be at the top of the taxonomy, and the study (STS) therewithin it somewhere. SteveMc 21:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on a withdrawn merge to [[technology and society]] 

message: I removed this paragraph due to it lacking WP:NPOV and seems to be unsourced original research:
:STS is now sufficiently well established to have taken on a distinct identity as a field capable of offering an indispensable perspective on science and technology. At the same time, STS has won widespread respect for the rigor and excellence of its scholarship, much of which takes the form of detailed, book length case studies . (The term "studies" in "science and technology studies" reflects the field's preference for high-quality, in-depth, detailed case studies as a fundamental measure of scholarly achievement.) Still, some STS scholars express dissatisfaction with the field's as-yet nascent impact on science and technology practice, and call for closer, more collaborative relationships with scientists and engineers.
Not a dog 20:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future of STS 

message: Why student journals are not important? And what makes a non-student journal important?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.102.156 (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! I changed the word "important" to "notable", and added a link to WP:Academic journals' notability guidelines. If a student journal met those criteria, by all means it should be included in the first list. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  demarcation criteria for journals 

message: Myself and some of my colleagues and students would like to add a section that briefly describes some of the key concepts developed and/or used by STS scholars, with examples specifically relevant to their use in STS scholarship, and links to other Wikipedia main pages on those concepts where appropriate. I'm sure that the list that we generate will not be exhaustive, but it seems like the page would benefit from more information on the content of STS research in addition to information on the field's history, professional journals, etc. Hopefully later editors could contribute to this section as well.
Independebubble (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Section added, potential updates planned based on how this is accepted Mxnicpixie (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of "Important concepts in STS" section 

message: We would like to propose the addition of the concept of Legacy Thinking. As a part of our Science, Technology, and Society class at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute we have encountered this term and find it important to an understanding of the way society functions.  Based on the following sources, we would like to provide a definition and a few examples of legacy thinking. 
"Net Neutrality: A Free and Open Internet." The White House. The White House, 26 Feb. 2015. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
Corso, Regina, SVP. "PACs, Big Companies, Lobbyists, and Banks and Financial Institutions Seen by Strong Majorities as Having Too Much Power and Influence in DC." Harris Interactive: Harris Polls. Harris Interactive, 29 May 2012. Web. 21 Apr. 2015
Allison, Bill, and Sarah Harkins. "Fixed Fortunes: Biggest Corporate Political Interests Spend Billions, Get Trillions." Sunlight Foundation Blog. Sunlight Foundation, 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
Flow. Oscilloscope Pictures, 2008. DVD.
“The National Bureau of Asian Research." India's Water Crisis: Causes and Cures. Web. 21 Apr. 2015. <http://www.nbr.org/research/activity.aspx?id=356>.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:2820:A0D:B959:13AD:5850:203E (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy Thinking 

message: Definition&Concept:
Social constructions are human created ideas, objects, or events created by a series of choices and interactions. These interactions have consequences that change the perception that different groups of people have on these constructs. Some examples of social construction include gender, class, race, money, and citizenship. 
The following also alludes to the notion that not everything is set, a circumstance or result could potentially be one way or the other. According to the What is Social Construction? by Laura Flores, "Social construction work is critical of the status quo. Social constructionists about X tend to hold that:
1) X need not have existed, or need not be at all as it is. X, or X as it is at present, is not determined by the nature of things; it is not inevitable
Very often they go further, and urge that:
2) X is quite as bad as it is.
3) We would be much better off if X were done away with, or at least radically transformed." In the past we have seen that some "knowledge" or "facts" have been disproven as new knowledge comes a long and helps our society be better informed or educated on things that were once not questioned. Such "knowledge" includes the past concept of a correlation between intelligence and the nature of a human's ethnicity or race (X may not be at all as it is).  
Examples:
The intention of high-wheel bicycle is to get a higher translational velocity over the ground via replacing the front wheel with a lager-radius wheel. However, this attempt lead to the unstable of riding experience and potential harm. For young athletes and enthusiastic youth, this bicycle means passion. However, for some elder and women, they worry about the issue when a large wheel hit a piece of brick or stone, when rider try to check the wheel, the sudden check usually threw the rider over the handle bar. Therefore, a technological innovation or progress caused some unintended and undesired consequences. The social construction of safety caused the design of the bicycle to change to a more safe design. 
[Extended copy/paste from Bijker's essay on Bakelite removed for copyright reasons. Please do not copy/paste large blocks of text anywhere on Wikipedia. See WP:COPYVIO for more information.] --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  STS Social Construction  

message: I noticed several of you are copy/pasting sources into the talk page. This is a big copyright problem, even if you cite the source. Please remove any big blocks of copy/pasted material and be sure everything is cited. It's not as strict as it is in the article, but copyright applies to every page on Wikipedia. If you do not remove it, I or someone else will have to.
Also, there are a lot of resources available to help student editors. I work for the Wiki Education Foundation and would like very much to be able to contact your professor. Could you either direct him/her to email (ryan [at] wikiedu [dot] org) or give me a name/institution to look up? Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow-up: Thanks to  for providing some information about the course. I removed the most egregious of the copyright issues and replaced it with an italicized explanation. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello student editors (please read) 

message: "Although, Garrett Hardin was not an scholar, the concept of Tragedy of the Commons still applies to science, technology and society.[11]
The internet is a science, technology and society example where tragedy of the commons is relevant as physical resources that are being exploited gets protected by legislation, the internet is a free market which is easily exploitable such as privacy." What? What are you trying to say? GangofOne (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Garrett Hardin was not an scholar

message: I propose that Science studies be merged here into Science, technology and society. The text in the Science studies article is lower quality and can be better explained in the context of this article. The merge should not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. There is an old circa 2005 discussion of the relationship between these articles at Talk:Science_studies#Science_and_technology_studies.2C_not_Science_studies. This line from the concluding argument there for having two separate articles is telling: "There still are science studies departments -- UCSD, for instance, that don't do much with technology." If you browse to UCSD's web page today, you will find that they are offering a "Minor in Science, Technology, and Society" (). -hugeTim (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Science studies]] into this article (old) 

message: Hi everyone, I've proposed the creation of WikiProject STS in order to address the issues of this and other articles, as well as to provide continuing updates for STS news and STS analysis of issues in science, technology, and governance. Please take a look at the proposal and provide commentary on it, and let me know if you'd be interested in contributing in some way! Mathmitch7 (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for WikiProject STS 

message: It's pretty clear to me that these pages need to be merged. The last vote on this subject (in 2016) was 3 to 2 against, but since the page was renamed we should vote again. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I just moved the "Professional associations" and "Journals" sections toward the end of the article as I suggested in my earlier comment above. Biogeographist (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not exactly an expert here, but my thoughts on the issue are pretty similar to yours. I'd like to hear what  has to say about logology. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger with Science Studies (old) 

message: I'd like to at least get it in good enough shape so we can remove all the tags that are plaguing it, maybe make it a bit more streamlined and with less of a "list" feel... and a few more things to bring out some of the key ideas in this important sub-field. If anyone's still around who's into this, please holla at me here. If I don't hear anything I might just start doing stuff as the moment takes me. Would be nice to work with someone on it though. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am watching the article. Also note that Science studies is in bad shape and needs help too. (I added the cleanup tag to that one.) Biogeographist (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone still editing this page? 

message: The primary illustration on this article is a photo of some object in the London Science Museum. It's described as a "communications artifact", with no further elaboration. It looks like a cable winder; if that's what it is, then it is indeed a communications artifact, in the sense that it's man-made, and might be concerned with communication.
But I have no idea why it is in this article. I would like to remove it; I don't think any illustration is appropriate for an article on this topic, although I could be persuaded. But this topic is extremely abstract, and I doubt that a photo of any concrete artifact is helpful as the main article image. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communications Artifact 

message: I don't know why this section appears in the article. Nothing in the section explains why TOTC has anything to do with Science and Technology Studies, and TOTC is essentially an issue in social relations, not science or technology.
I propose to delete the section.
MrDemeanour (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The tragedy of the commons is an idea that is used in STS too. I think the current citations illustrate that reasonably, although more could be added. I support keeping this section. Bondegezou (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tragedy of the commons