Sociology and science 26 Apr 2008 I have an uncanny ability to offend those who I shouldn’t be offending, with bad jokes. In a recent post I put in a Tom Lehrer video where he mocks sociology. Having had philosophy mocked by my friends and contacts over the years (you study what? Your navel?), I guess I am a bit inured to such things. But I forgot that in this case there is a double whammy: philosophers have spent a lot of time mocking sociology, especially in the context of science. So below the fold, I put a comment made by respected sociologist of science, Eli Gerson, which he put in the comments of that post, and which deserves to be raised in profile. Before that, however, let me position my view. I was taught a kind of disembodied philosophy of science. Science was something done by pure minds that made Theory. There was a mythology that science was independent of mere social concerns like the current political or economic conditions in general and as they applied to the particular school, museum, or research collaboration. How that myth arose it itself an interesting story, but it was always under challenge by people like Koyre, Merton, and later, Kuhn. And it was brought home to me forcefully when I read David Hull’s Science as a Process that Eli references below. There is a movement that looks at the social processes of science as if that were all there is to science, and that therefore one can ignore the ideas as constructs of that social process – neither I nor Eli I think would want to argue for that (Eli has always discussed the ideas as well) – but ideas are at least the outcome of the social nature of science. What more they are, well, that’s what the philosophy is about, isn’t it? So I apologise to sociologists of science, as I would to historians of science in the same conditions, and in to particular Eli, and thank him for his moderating contribution. I promise never to mock sociology again. From Eli Gerson: John’s posting of Lehrer’s song (one of the less successful efforts in a long career devoted to ignorant, bigoted, unfunny cheap shots from the secondary school playground) sent me back to my notebook from 1989. This was under the heading “Sociology and philosophy of science”; I haven’t edited it except to fill out the references. In the years just after World War II, both sociology and philosophy of science endured an unfortunate period of concern with highly restricted and reductionist approaches to method. In this view, the scope of research and issues of quality were framed as questions of adequate hypothesis testing. The approach was as strong or stronger in philosophy as it was in sociology, and sociological teaching of the time relied explicitly on this reductionist philosophy of science as a justification for this usage. The works of philosophers such as Hempel (1965) became standard fare in courses on theory and methodological foundations. There can hardly be any doubt that the consequences of this approach was unfortunate for both fields. But in recent years, both philosophy of science and sociology (and many other disciplines as well) have seen a broad movement to restore much of the variety in acceptable approaches to method which was lost during the earlier period. One result has been a proliferation of methodological debates and schools of thought in sociology, often tied to the schools organized around different theoretical positions. Another result has been that sociologists have largely come to ignore philosophy of science as a source of ideas in framing and solving methodological problems, even as they routinely rely on political philosophy, moral philosophy and epistemology as sources of inspiration for theoretical positions. This is not to say that sociological concern with methods has declined in recent years; if anything, it has increased (e.g., Strauss, 1987; Lieberson, 1985). But we have learned to rely on statistics and other disciplines, not philosophy, for new and improved methods. We do this even for approaches which are basically qualitative. It is remarkable– and encouraging– when an important and exciting book on qualitative research method draws its primary inspiration from the work of electronics engineers (Ragin, 1988). My thesis here is that we are missing a bet by ignoring current work in philosophy of science as a source of methodological support. In the last two decades, philosophy of science has changed and developed in many important ways. In part, these changes reflect the exhaustion and failure of logical empircism (e.g., Suppes, 1977). In part, they reflect broader changes in research style which have occurred in many disciplines. And in part, they reflect the response of philosophers to work in the history and sociology of science, which has provided a challenge to traditional philosophical conceptions of the research process. But in any case, research in philosophy of science has become much more accessible and much more pertinent to sociologists in recent years. Indeed, a few philosophers on the cutting edge of their discipline can even be found doing fieldwork, on the supposition that the logic of inquiry has something to do with the organization of research practice (e.g., Griesemer and Wade, 1988; Hull, 1988). The proliferation of alternative approaches to method which grew out of the opening of the discipline in the 1970’s and 1980’s has left us with a difficulty. The rejection of a restricted and reductionist formalism based on an exclusive concern with hypothesis testing has often led to approaches which ignore the problems of technical rigor entirely. It is one thing to insist that there is more in nature than any single formalism can encompass. It is another thing altogether to conclude that logical consistency and reproducibility of results are irrelevant to the conduct of good sociology. It is one thing to insist that the experience of every individual, group and society is unique and valuable in its own right. It is another thing altogether to conclude that the history of the next person or group is irrelevant to the solution of one’s own problems. It is one thing to recognize that the conventions of sociologists do not have any intrinsic privilege in interpreting experience. It is another thing altogether to conclude that any interpretation is as good as any other for sociological purposes. It is one thing to celebrate freedom. It is another altogether to eliminate due process in order to achieve it. None of these conclusions is technically or morally valid; instead, they simply move the discipline toward a kind of romantic elitism, much like that of e.e. cummings (1954): While you and I have lips and voices which are for kissing and to sing with, Who cares if some one-eyed son-of-a-bitch invents an instrument to measure Spring with? The problem with this approach (its sheer selfishness and irresponsibility aside), is that it makes concern with method and rigor a kind of nastiness; the current buzzword is “harsh”. But this position leaves us with no way of understanding, accommodating, or aiding those who do not have lips and voices and partners to kiss and sing with. Worse: precisely to the extent that it becomes conventional, it silences the voices and destroys the partnerships of those who do. This is a morally and intellectually defective stance: the Hobbesian state of nature is not an adequate replacement for defective institutions. We should be forming methods for posing and answering questions in effective ways. We should also be reforming and recreating methods which allow us to address the problems which the discipline has always addressed and never solved. In short, we need more rigor, not less; better instrumentation, not none; reform and revolution, not whim. I don’t think that this means that a methodologist must necessarily be a son-of-a-bitch; but if it does, well, arf. cummings, e.e. 1954. Poems, 1923 – 1954. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Griesemer, J. R., and M. J. Wade. 1988. “Laboratory models, causal explanation and group selection”.Biology & Philosophy 3: 67-96. Hempel, C. G. 1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays. New York: Free Press. Hull, D. L. 1988. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lieberson, S. 1985. Making it Count. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ragin, C. 1988. The Comparative Method. Berkeley: University of California Press. Strauss, A.L. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press. Suppe, F. 1977. “The search for philosophic understanding of scientific theories”. Pp. 3-241 in F. Suppe (Ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. General Science History Politics Social evolution
History Aristotle on politics and religion 16 Feb 2010 “And further he [the tyrant] must be seen always to be exceptionally zealous as regards religious observances (for people are less afraid of suffering any illegal treatment from men of this sort, if they think that their ruler has religious scruples and pays regard to the gods, and also they… Read More
Education How to learn about science… 12 Dec 200818 Sep 2017 I received a query from reader Jodi, of Nova Scotia (I so want to visit there one summer) about how to learn about a scientific subject as a layperson. Of course being a philosopher I was able to answer her quickly, but readers may wish to comment more authoritatively and… Read More
Cognition New publications 25 Aug 201225 Aug 2012 I have added some under-review drafts of my papers to the PhilPapers archive: Essentialism in Biology. Essentialism in philosophy is the position that things, especially kinds of things, have essences, or sets of properties, that all members of the kind must have, and the combination of which only members of the… Read More
I had already read Mr Gerson’s comment on the Lehrer thread and had intended to comment on it there. I should say that I actually have two separate comments the first as a Tom Lehrer fan and the second as a historian of science. The Tom Lehrer fan: Mr Gerson wrote: Lehrer’s song (one of the less successful efforts in a long career devoted to ignorant, bigoted, unfunny cheap shots from the secondary school playground) Might I humbly suggest that either Mr Gerson, a)is completely devoid of a sense of humour or b)his mother was frightened by a satirical mathematician when she was pregnant or c)he is a Catholic pigeon breeder 😉 But to be fair I will just say tastes differ. The historian of science: I think Mr Gerson’s polemic is excellent and right on the button I also agree with Mr Wilkins’ comments on the subject, which is the main reason that I keep coming back here to read what he has to say. I call myself a historian of science a title that covers a vast multitude of sins, if I have to be more specific I say that I am a narrative social historian of science whose main area of study is the evolution of the mathematical sciences in their social, political, cultural, economic and institutional contexts between 1400 and 1750. I see the history, philosophy and sociology of science not as three separate disciplines but as an intertwined, interconnected, interdependent complex, they are different facets of the whole and any attempt to describe the scientific process with only one of them whilst ignoring the other two can only lead to a distorted and falsified picture. P.S. Thank you Mr Wilkins for the Tom Lehrer video it was a song that I had not heard before and I at least enjoyed it immensely. If you get pissed off at the stupid comments people make when you declare that you are a philosopher try telling people that you are a Wissenschaftshistoriker! They tend to look at you as if you had lost your marbles.
I had already read Mr Gerson’s comment on the Lehrer thread and had intended to comment on it there. I should say that I actually have two separate comments the first as a Tom Lehrer fan and the second as a historian of science. The Tom Lehrer fan: Mr Gerson wrote: Lehrer’s song (one of the less successful efforts in a long career devoted to ignorant, bigoted, unfunny cheap shots from the secondary school playground) Might I humbly suggest that either Mr Gerson, a)is completely devoid of a sense of humour or b)his mother was frightened by a satirical mathematician when she was pregnant or c)he is a Catholic pigeon breeder 😉 But to be fair I will just say tastes differ. The historian of science: I think Mr Gerson’s polemic is excellent and right on the button I also agree with Mr Wilkins’ comments on the subject, which is the main reason that I keep coming back here to read what he has to say. I call myself a historian of science a title that covers a vast multitude of sins, if I have to be more specific I say that I am a narrative social historian of science whose main area of study is the evolution of the mathematical sciences in their social, political, cultural, economic and institutional contexts between 1400 and 1750. I see the history, philosophy and sociology of science not as three separate disciplines but as an intertwined, interconnected, interdependent complex, they are different facets of the whole and any attempt to describe the scientific process with only one of them whilst ignoring the other two can only lead to a distorted and falsified picture. P.S. Thank you Mr Wilkins for the Tom Lehrer video it was a song that I had not heard before and I at least enjoyed it immensely. If you get pissed off at the stupid comments people make when you declare that you are a philosopher try telling people that you are a Wissenschaftshistoriker! They tend to look at you as if you had lost your marbles.
Thony, you’ve been here long anough to call me John now. And I am not only a Philosoph, but also a Historiker, of Wissenschaft, so I get really weird looks.
Thony, you’ve been here long anough to call me John now. And I am not only a Philosoph, but also a Historiker, of Wissenschaft, so I get really weird looks.
Thony C’s response to my comment on Lehrer exemplifies a well-worn pattern: 1) Somebody says something denigrating a group of people in a nasty way; 2) Somebody else points out that the remark is unfunny, offensive, and devoid of merit; 3) The offender or a fan claims that the original remark was a joke, and the offended person doesn’t have a sense of humor. Of course, whether or not the offended person has a sense of humor is irrelevant– the original comment remains unfunny, offensive and devoid of merit no matter how many ad hominem attacks are mounted against the injured parties. Lehrer’s act is an incompetent piece of bigoted schlock, whether considered as song and poetry, as a critique of sociology, or both. In this instance, the only interesting variants are the addition of a supplementary piece of bigotry, echoing Lehrer’s own sorry record of anti-Catholicism, and the mask of anonymity.
In this instance, the only interesting variants are the addition of a supplementary piece of bigotry, echoing Lehrer’s own sorry record of anti-Catholicism, and the mask of anonymity. Mr Gerson if I understand you correctly then you are accusing me of hiding behind a mask of anonymity. If you click on my name you will see that this is far from being the case. I’m sorry if my remarks at your, in my opinion, completely over the top attack on Tom Lehrer caused you further offence and I formally withdraw them herewith. I still fail totally to understand why you have such an unbelievably negative attitude to Lehrer but in the end that is your problem and not mine. I will however repeat that I found your short polemic on sociology and the philosophy of science really excellent. I have also downloaded your paper on Analysing Historical Data and although I have only had time to skim through it, it looks very interesting and I look forward to reading it properly.
I have read Kuhn and think he has some verisimillitude. However, the last comment from him I am aware of was reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education. At some conference, Kuhn was quoted (with photo) as saying, “We do not know how science progresses.” I took this to mean that he had understood his ideas were not a complete theory of scientific progress.
I have read Kuhn and think he has some verisimillitude. However, the last comment from him I am aware of was reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education. At some conference, Kuhn was quoted (with photo) as saying, “We do not know how science progresses.” I took this to mean that he had understood his ideas were not a complete theory of scientific progress.
I have an uncanny ability to offend those who I shouldn’t be offending, with bad jokes… It’s a gift, given to many, Mr Wilkins.
I have an uncanny ability to offend those who I shouldn’t be offending, with bad jokes… It’s a gift, given to many, Mr Wilkins.
I have an uncanny ability to offend those who I shouldn’t be offending, with bad jokes… It’s a gift, given to many, Mr Wilkins.
I have an uncanny ability to offend those who I shouldn’t be offending, with bad jokes… It’s a gift, given to many, Mr Wilkins.
I have an uncanny ability to offend those who I shouldn’t be offending, with bad jokes… It’s a gift, given to many, Mr Wilkins.
It’s a gift, given to many, Mr Wilkins. and given my exchange with Mr Gerson one that I seem to share.
It’s a gift, given to many, Mr Wilkins. and given my exchange with Mr Gerson one that I seem to share.
For those accusing Tom Lehrer of various heinous sins, especially being unfunny, I suggest this little piece by Scott Adams. No matter how many ad hominem attacks are mounted on Mr. Lehrer, he will remain funny to his many, many fans. And I think that Lehrer’s beef is not with people who want to answer deep questions about science per se, but rather about those who have adopted the jargon for jargon’s sake, without any real results, without any real understanding. Narrating science is easy, predicting or improving science is much more difficult. Rigor is great, but it is useless just by itself. The best way to convince Lehrer and other is show how your beliefs, methods, approaches paid their rent in full (which is just a fancy metaphor I like for making novel predictions, the hallmark of true insight).
Mr Gerson if I understand you correctly then you are accusing me of hiding behind a mask of anonymity. If you click on my name you will see that this is far from being the case. You are correct; my apologies. I withdraw the remark. I’m sorry if my remarks at your, in my opinion, completely over the top attack on Tom Lehrer caused you further offence and I formally withdraw them herewith. I still fail totally to understand why you have such an unbelievably negative attitude to Lehrer but in the end that is your problem and not mine. Thank you for withdrawing your remarks about me, my mother, and Catholics. You’re correct that it’s my problem that you don’t understand why it’s offensive when people attack whole categories of others without reason. I console myself with the thought that I have lots of company in that respect. I look forward to your achieving insight. I will however repeat that I found your short polemic on sociology and the philosophy of science really excellent. I have also downloaded your paper on Analysing Historical Data and although I have only had time to skim through it, it looks very interesting and I look forward to reading it properly. Thank you for the kind thought; I hope you enjoy Analyzing Interview Data. Comments and suggestions gratefully received.
Mr Gerson if I understand you correctly then you are accusing me of hiding behind a mask of anonymity. If you click on my name you will see that this is far from being the case. You are correct; my apologies. I withdraw the remark. I’m sorry if my remarks at your, in my opinion, completely over the top attack on Tom Lehrer caused you further offence and I formally withdraw them herewith. I still fail totally to understand why you have such an unbelievably negative attitude to Lehrer but in the end that is your problem and not mine. Thank you for withdrawing your remarks about me, my mother, and Catholics. You’re correct that it’s my problem that you don’t understand why it’s offensive when people attack whole categories of others without reason. I console myself with the thought that I have lots of company in that respect. I look forward to your achieving insight. I will however repeat that I found your short polemic on sociology and the philosophy of science really excellent. I have also downloaded your paper on Analysing Historical Data and although I have only had time to skim through it, it looks very interesting and I look forward to reading it properly. Thank you for the kind thought; I hope you enjoy Analyzing Interview Data. Comments and suggestions gratefully received.
Um, I think it’s a safe bet that almost anything in the Tom Lehrer canon is meant as a joke (and likely one relying on hyperbole) first and foremost, and not to be taken too seriously. I’ll agree this is far from one of Lehrer’s best efforts. And note that I know exactly zip about the subject being discussed, and have nothing either for or against sociology as a discipline, other than having an offspring about to graduate in soc & anthro.
Um, I think it’s a safe bet that almost anything in the Tom Lehrer canon is meant as a joke (and likely one relying on hyperbole) first and foremost, and not to be taken too seriously. I’ll agree this is far from one of Lehrer’s best efforts. And note that I know exactly zip about the subject being discussed, and have nothing either for or against sociology as a discipline, other than having an offspring about to graduate in soc & anthro.