Criticism and knowledge: Social studies of science and technology and the critical transformation of our epistemic practices
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29092/uacm.v9i18.420Keywords:
Constructivism, ethnography of knowledge, strong programme, demythologization of knowledge, forms of lifeAbstract
In this paper, by revisiting the Lynch-Bloor debate (1992) and from a re-interpretation of the article “Understanding a Primitive Society” (1964) by Peter Winch, I will argue that from the demythologization of knowledge processes carried out in the past decades a positive proposal follows. This proposal consists in a critical approach, which allows social studies of science and technology to transcend its attachments to a mere descriptive view of knowledge. This opens up the possibility that even when we accept that epistemic practices are culture dependent there is still the possibility to evaluate them in the light of “other cultures”.
Downloads
References
Baker, G. (1984), Scepticism, Rules and Language, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Barnes, B. (1977), Interests and the Growth of Knowledge, Londres/Boston: Routledge.
Bijker, W., Hughes, T., Pinch, T. (1987), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Bloor, D. (1992), “Left and Right Wittgensteinians”, en Andrew Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 266-282.
__________ (1976), Knowledge and Social Imagery, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Collins, H. M. (1985), Changing Order. Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
__________, Pinch, T. (2005), Dr. Golem: How to Think about Medicine, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
__________, __________ (1998), The Golem at Large. What You Should Know about Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
__________, __________ (1993), The Golem. What You Should Know about Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
__________, Yearley, S. (1992), “Epistemological Chicken”, en Andrew Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture, Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 301-326.
Evans-Pritchard, E. (1976) [1937], Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the Azande, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Habermas, J. (1989), The Theory of Communicative Action, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hirschauer, S. (1991), “The Manufacture of Bodies in Surgery”, en Social Studies of Science, vol. 21, núm. 2, mayo, Londres: Sage, pp. 279-319.
Hutchins, E. (1996), Cognition in the Wild, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
Kuhn, T. H. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2a ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kusch, M. (2004), “Rule-Scepticism and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: The Bloor-Lynch Debate Revisited”, en Social Studies of Science, vol. 34, núm.4, septiembre, Londres: Sage, pp. 571-591.
Latour, B. (2005), Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
__________ (2004), Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
__________, Woolgar, S. (1979/1986), Laboratory Life, 2a ed., Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Law, J. (ed.) (1991), A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, Londres: Routledge.
__________ (1986), “On Power and its Tactics: a View from the Sociology of Science”, en The Sociological Review, vol. 34, núm. 1, febrero, Keele, UK Keele University/Wiley, pp. 1-38.
Lee, N., Brown, S. (1994), “Otherness and the Actor Network: The Undiscovered Continent”, en American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 37, núm. 6, mayo, Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage, pp. 772-790.
Lynch, M. (1992a), “Extending Wittgenstein: The Pivotal Move from Epistemology to the Sociology of Science”, en Andrew Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture, Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 215-265.
__________ (1992b), “From the ‘Will to Theory’ to the Discursive Collage: A Reply to Bloor’s ‘Left and Right Wittgensteinians’”, en Andrew Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture, Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 283-299.
Pleasants, N. (2000), “Winch and Wittgenstein on Understanding Ourselves Critically: Descriptive Not Metaphysical”, en Inquiry, vol. 43, núm. 3, mayo-junio, Colchester, uk: Department of Philosophy-University of Essex/Routledge, pp. 289-317.
Popper, K. (1983) [1949], “Hacia una teoría racional de la tradición”, en Conjeturas y refutaciones. El desarrollo del conocimiento científico, Barcelona: Paidós, pp. 156-173.
Shapin, S. (1994), A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
__________, Schaffer, S. (1985), Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Star, S. (1991), “Power, Technology and the Phenomenology of Conventions: on Being Allergic to Onions”, en John Law (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, Londres: Routledge, pp. 26-56.
Wilson, B. (ed.) (1970), Rationality, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Winch, P. (1964), “Understanding a Primitive Society”, en Bryan Wilson (ed.), Rationality, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 78-111.
__________ (1958), The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy, Londres: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
__________ (1956), “Social Science”, en The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 7, núm. 1, marzo, Londres: The London School of Economics and Political Science, pp. 18-33.
Wittgenstein, L. (1988) [1953], Investigaciones filosóficas, México-Barcelona: Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas (IIF)-UNAM/Crítica.
__________ (1967), “Bemerkungen über Frazers Golden Bough”, en Synthese, vol. 17, núm. 1, enero, Dodrecht: Dordrecht Reidel, pp. 233-253.
Published
Issue
Section
License
This Journal is licensed under Creative Commons Mexico 2.5. It is allowed to reproduce and disseminate the contents of the Journal for educational or research purposes, not for profit, as long as they are not mutilated and cite the source (Andamios, Revista de Investigación Social) and the author.
The copyright of the articles published in Andamios, Revista de Investigación Social are transferred by the author(s) to Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México when the originals have been accepted, so that they are published and distributed both in the printed and electronic versions of the Journal. However, as established by law, the author(s) retains their moral rights. The author(s) will receive a form of assignment of copyright that they must to sign when their original has been accepted. In the case of collective articles, the signature of one of the authors will suffice, provided that the latter has obtained the consent of the others.
Authors may use the material of their article in other works or books published by themselves, with the condition of quoting Andamios as the original source of the texts.
The articles contained in this publication are the responsibility of their authors and do not compromise the official position of Andamios, Revista de Investigación Social of the Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México.
