Iain wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Una McCormack wrote:
Sociology of science has changed radically since Popper was writing: there's
a large body of
ethnographic work which emphasizes the social practice of science and the
way
scientific method acts as a set of ideal principles than reflects day-to-day
activity.
In fairness to Popper, he was mainly concerned with the logical problem of how science can, in principle, make progress.
Which is why he's pegged as a philosopher and not a sociologist, presumably.
Loren Graham writes very interestingly about science in the former Soviet
Union (which I'm
assuming constitutes a closed society). He tracks the way in which science
was abused under the
Soviet system (the devastating effect of Lysenkoism on Soviet biology is a
particular case he
uses), but makes the general conclusion that Soviet science had a number of
successes in many
fields, and that science can be remarkably robust under stress. The
correlation between the
'Open Society' and scientific method is not so straightforward: science is
not necessarily a
'Western' activity.
I'd agree with all of that except the last clause. McDonald's hamburgers are an American product, even though they're sold in Moscow.
You're going to have to explain that one to thicky Una, I'm afraid, Iain. I've not got your point.
Graham's work also raises some interesting questions about how
scientific method might operate as a sort of counter-ethic within societies like the Soviet Union (like Catholicism did in Poland).
Throughout the Cold War, the scientific community regarded itself as an international brotherhood, working together without regard for politics, promoting freedom, understanding and peace.
This is an interesting one. You could hear a similar case being made for continuing to play sport with South African teams during apartheid, yet that was generally dismissed as being not on. I wonder why the two examples operate differently.
What
would also be interesting, and which I haven't seen, would be comparative ethnographic work which studied the way in which the principles of scientific method were referred to and made 'up front' in the everyday talk of scientists in different societies. Practical problems for such a clearly fruitful body of research might include: 1. the non-existence of the Soviet Union robs us of perhaps the most significant counter-example of science operating successfully under stress; 2. the reliability of information gained from ethnographic studies in situations where people are in fear of their lives if they talk too freely.
But problem 2 is solved by problem 1. Get some of the old geezers and ask them what it used to be like. Of course, you'll have to be quick: they're dropping like flies.
Sadly, I imagine they'll be gone long before I get round to learning enough Russian to be able to talk to them meaningfully (current level of my Russian? I can say: 'I cannot speak Russian' (isn't that one of those paradox thingies?)). There'd also be some problems surrounding reporting behaviour so long after the fact, particularly with what I imagine would be such an emotionally charged subject. That'd be doing history rather than ethnography. Not that that's any reason not to do it.
Should we spin this?
Una