Scientific sociology

The study that the scientific sociology (かがくしゃかいがく British: sociology of science) assumes science a study theme. A sociological one minute field.

The scientific sociological establishment was relatively new to mention it later, but I received development of philosophical approach to science and the history of that were science and a scientific technological change and adjacent study science and science and the remarkable change of social relations and contents and the method of the science sociology also changed rapidly to developed.

I enlarge the field that the science sociology including a sociological study about the contents itself of the scientific knowledge, the advisor observational study that, besides, a scientist is a laboratory, and what really does, a study about transmission, the spread to the society of the science knowledge, the study about the conflict to produce between technology and society (the public) intends for from the study that how a system affects the study of the scientist on original science at any time.

In the following, I speak a theme and a topic, the methodology as the scientific sociological master according to the order of almost scientific sociological development.

Sociology of the scientist

The scientific sociological founder is said to be Robert K Merton.

Merton was one of the American representative sociologists, and, as seen in most important work "social theory and social structure," the study diverged into many branches, but there was the starting point as his researcher for a historical sociology study about the science as seen in thesis "science, technique, society (1938) in the 17th century U.K.". I assign one chapter to a scientific sociology study among four chapters constitution in "social theory and social structure".

The working called the science produces scientific knowledge and I apply it and try for the solution to social technical problem, and I am carried by a social scientists "scientist group" (scientific community) who transmit science knowledge to a young generation as needed. In addition, this scientist group is also supported by the general public and is affected. In other words, the science is also nothing but one social system.

In the 1930s, mutual relations with the society - culture structure to surround scientific cognitive development and it considered Merton after starting a sociological study a basic problem in a graduate school of Harvard University while receiving instruction of history of science researcher George Sarton (George Sarton) and wrote the above-mentioned thesis.

However, the scientific sociology study is an American social learned society from 1940s through 1950s, but a flower greatly never bloomed. The study to assume scientific knowledge and interaction with the society the subject tended to be considered that an inclination to the left-like in the American society including the learned society [¹], and, in this, there were circumstances tabooed in the Cold War system after World War II.

The scientific sociology study of Merton greatly changed direction and I shifted from study interest to assume the science of the thesis and social interaction a problem generally to retreated, and the structure in the scientist group as the autonomous society system came to limit a study to function-like analysis. The scientific sociology study of Merton went with analysis to model structure (normative structure of science) to measure a scientist as an individual again as a group. According to Merton, the working called the science is supported by an original ethos (outlook on ethic) appropriate for achieving an aim called the increase of the confirmed knowledge. It is four rules called "principle of universalism, public ownership, interest transcendence-related systematic skepticism" shared among scientists, so-called "Merton norm" in this way that was extracted as the main factor of development and the spread of modern scientific knowledge (later description).

For structure, the functionalism-like science sociology study that succeeded such a study of Merton as for the scientific sociology of this time in this way, for example, is Warren O. Hagstrom (Warren ハグストロム) "scientist group The Scientific Community" and Norman W. I include Storer (Norman Storer) "scientific social system The social system of science". In addition, the quantitative scientific sociology by Derek J. de Solla Price (Derek price) and others produced remarkable result called "little science big science", too. When this was a quantitative index such as the number of scientists, the number of the scientific articles and saw it, the working called the science clarified the fact that showed the increase tendency that was exponential throughout in the since 17th century.

I protected the line that I put the fact itself of the scientific theory in a flight recorder and did not handle, and these which inherited a study of Merton put it while doing the system analysis about a reward system and the research facility of the scientist, the quotation analysis between articles with a master. Therefore, I can call such a scientific sociology study "the sociology of the scientist" collectively. It steps into the fact of the scientific theory to fight against this, and it will be the science sociology that I fixed mainly on rather scientific knowledge and relations with the society. The sociology (SSK: Sociology of Scientific Knowledge) of the scientific knowledge that the next passage introduced was right such a thing.

Merton norm (Marton CUDOS)

Kaoru Narisada explains four norms that Merton showed (except originality Originality) as follows [²]. Here, I added originality Originality and showed so-called Marton CUDOS.

The principle of public ownership (Communalism): The scientist must not monopolize discovery, and the secretiveness is not permitted.
Universalism (Universalism): The scientific achievements must be evaluated without the personal character of the individual scientist and social status and a relation.
Interest transcendence (Disinterestedness): The scientist must use the thing which I discovered in the way that transcended an interest.
Originality (Originality): The claim of the scientist must be a new thing and must be the thing which adds something new to our knowledge and understanding.
Systematic skepticism (Skepticism): As for the scientist, critical by new knowledge; should evaluate it objectively.

Matthew effect (Matthew effect)

In Merton, the researcher blessed with a condition pointed out mechanism of "the accumulation of profit - superiority" to be endowed with a condition more by giving superior achievements [³]. "The person to quite have was given, and words in the New Testament became finally rich, but the person not to have would be taken up to a thing to have" and borrowed it from (Matthew Gospel Chapter 13 12 sections), and, in Merton, they named this mechanism "Matthew effect". Approval is given in form to pad it for the scientific documents by the well-known scientist, and a nameless scientist is not given it. For example, a Nobel Prize winner is a Nobel Prize winner throughout the life, but this prize winner plays a bigger and bigger role in distribution, the collaborative investigation of science resources, the training of the successor because an advantageous position is given in a learned society. The Matthew effect has the positive side to promote scientific development at the point where the contribution of the high scientist of the popularity is incorporated in in a scientific communication network quickly and broadly, but, on the other hand, when it is before I invite idolization of the scientific authority, I will violate an ethos of "universalism Universalism" in Merton norms (e.g., the article of the nameless new face scientist is hard to be accepted by an academic journal and is put at the position that is more disadvantageous than a well-known scientist about announcing the achievements) and have the negative side to inhibit scientific development.

Merton thesis (Merton Thesis)

I refer to "Merton thesis"

Influence of the クーン "paradigm" idea

"The structure of the scientific revolution" that Thomas クーン announced in 1962 is popular, and, as the thing which pointed out that an intermittently revolutionary change namely "a paradigm shift" produces it not the thing that the scientific history is always cumulative, I insisted on science relativity of knowledge, and it is considered to be (thing accepting a scientific view of at least relativism).

In addition, the word "paradigm" that クーン used was used as a kind of vogue word and came to be used in a "view, way of thinking "thought frame of the people in the times that there was" general for many people" and the general meaning that it was said roughly. For example, with the "Koujien" fourth edition, I am defined as "the dominant view of 1:00 charges".

Such popular view overlooks what I used as a thing pointing to the basic characteristic to distinguish intellectual activity called the science from other intellectual activity fundamentally in order to plan クーン having been a scientific advocate, the solution of the drawing problem to pull a border between science and non-science in the concept called the paradigm again. Conventional science and the non-scientific border setting standard (the disproof possibility that ポパー which became, for example, a critic of クーン advocated) let, actually, you pass it to a thing such as the astrology. クーン is a science mark in the meaning called the predictive (the prediction that I can disprove) eggplant which the astrology can test from the situations such as the principle of logical positivism and disproof, but insists when such a ridiculous thing does not produce it for the paradigm theory [⁴].

For クーン, the scientist is defined as a member belonging to the scientist group (scientific community), but a thing with maintenance = reproduction function of such a scientist group is a paradigm. The paradigm is prescribed in this way concerning a scientist group. It is decided whether a certain intellectual activity is science whether a paradigm exists in that. For example, this is because the reason why intellectual activity called the astrology is non-science is not that there is a problem in knowledge itself produced by the activity, and a paradigm to rule over the group engaged in the activity does not exist.

The paradigm theory of クーン had significance to reconsider the greatest problem in the philosophical approach to science called science and the non-scientific border setting standard by the introduction of the concept of the society (study) called the scientist group not the statement which accepted outlook on science of merely relativism at the point that I spoke on the top.

The paradigm theory of クーン exposed light to the working of "the normal science" that accumulated intellect on the base called the paradigm cumulatively again what the daily act of the scientist was. Most common scientists do not perform the proposals of the critical examination of the existing paradigm and the new paradigm. Many scientists were concerned with the Newton dynamics, the theory of relativity, the quantum mechanics for those generation period, but, as for (i.e., after the establishment of the paradigm), "how do you explain a real phenomenon?" emphasized what "I created how how you predicted an unknown new phenomenon" or that "I untied a puzzle" and engaged in mark activity assuming such a universal theory (without doubting universal theoretical correctness) after such a universal theory was established once. In this sense, it may be said that it is a grandfather or played a role as the uncle even if クーン is not direct father of laboratory study clarifying what is really performed on the site by technique of the advisor observation of the scientific research.

I it what the paradigm is

Originally the paradigm was the linguistic term which had been spoken in the meaning representative example (example) indicating the person and word type change by the tense. In the linguistics, I am used in the form that is called, for example, Latin Verb Conjugation Paradigms (paradigm of the inflection change of the Latin verb). In addition, クーン is thought to have been conscious of such a linguistic use on using the term paradigm. ことに where the fourth element of disciplinary matrix (specialized mother's body) which I used as a different way of saying of the terms paradigm is sample example (exemplars) [⁵] is shown in it during "supplementary chapter---1,969 years" when クーン was added with the クーン "structure second edition of the scientific revolution".

According to クーン, it is said that the paradigm is the complex whole to be comprised of elements such as a universality theory shared in the scientist group of the specialty domain of a certain uniformity, knowledge sense of values, a model, the technique of the background, but is that a paradigm includes all the things having maintenance = reproduction function of the scientist group as a component of the scientific focal point in the connotation. Therefore the paradigm became the meaning many things-like concept to have dozens of meaning contents by the use of クーン as a master man pointed it out with "essence [⁶] of the paradigm". The paradigm is the thing which should investigate the contents thoroughly in studies such as the rather future scientific history or the scientific sociology.

Sociology of the scientific knowledge

After the 1960s, the scientific sociology to originate in Merton becomes finally established as one specialized field. このマートン流の科学社会学が，前述のとおり専門分野として確立する過程で科学集団に焦点を合わせたものにならざるを得なかったのに対して、 1962年に発表されたクーンのパラダイム論は、科学知識の問題と科学者集団をダイナミックに両者を切り離すことなく分析する可能性を開くものだった。

上記のようなマートン流の「科学者の社会学」に対して、クーン流の科学観と知識社会学の伝統を融合しようと努めたヨーロッパの研究者の中から、科学者集団のみならず科学知識の内容そのものに踏み込んだ研究が立ち現れてくる。その担い手は、社会学の専門教育を受けた者よりむしろ、自然科学出身のものが多かった。彼らは、文化人類学や認知科学などの成果を武器に、科学知識そのものと科学者集団およびより広い社会との関連に焦点を定め，社会における科学知識の生産・流通の意味を積極的に問おうとした。科学知識の社会学（SSK：Sociology of Scientific Knowledge）の登場である。

「ストロングプログラム」と「エジンバラ学派」

科学者集団が社会の影響を受けるとするのみならず，科学知識もまた社会の影響を被る（科学知識の社会構築性）とするSSKが，科学の客観性に疑問を投げかける形で科学の社会性を分析することは必然的だった。なぜなら異なった社会では、異なった科学のあり方があり得るからである。中でも最も典型的と言われたのが，エジンバラ大学のデイヴィッド・ブルアが提唱した「ストロング・プログラム」である。ブルアはマートン流科学社会学が科学の合理的な部分を社会学的分析の対象から外したことを批判し、科学知識の内容にまでふみこみ、その社会的原因を分析するのが社会学者のつとめであると提唱した。この科学知識の社会学（SSK）という言葉もブルアが導入したものである。

「ストロング・プログラム」は，具体的には1976 年のブルアの『知識と社会表象』 (Bloor 1976) で科学知識社会学を行う上で受け入れるべき四つの信条 (tenets) という形で提示された。四つの信条とは、

(1) 因果性：科学知識は社会的な原因をふくむ様々な原因によって生成される

(2) 公平性：正しい（合理的な）信念も間違った（不合理な）信念も、どちらも説明を要する

(3) 対称性：正しい信念も間違った信念も同じタイプの原因によって説明される

(4) 反射性：以上の三つの前提は社会学自身にも適用される

エジンバラ大学では、この後、スティーブン・シェイピンやドナルド・マッケンジーといった研究者が「ストロング・プログラム」を実践した研究を発表し、「エジンバラ学派」と呼ばれるようになった。エジンバラ学派の具体的な研究として、ドナルド・マッケンジーによる統計学の誕生に関する研究 (MacKenzie 1981) がある。マッケンジーは、初期の統計学上の論争（バイオメトリックスとメンデル主義の論争など）でのゴルトンらの立場が、彼らが優生学を支持していたことに影響されており、優生学について有利な研究成果が出されたことを指摘する。また、当時（19世紀末から20世紀初頭）のイギリスでの優生学の支持者たちの多くは専門職をもつ中産階級であることから、彼らの階級的利害が優生学の推進に反映されていることも指摘された。

もうひとつ、エジンバラ学派の成果として、シャピンとシャファーのボイル＝ホッブズ論争の分析では、ロンドン王立協会とそのメンバーの権威がロバート・ボイルに有利に働いたと示唆されている。ボイルのエアポンプの実験の多くは王立協会の会議室で行われ、立会人となった人々の社会的な信用が、実験そのものの信憑性を高めるために利用された。これとは対照的に、ボイルに対する反論者ヘンリー・モアが漁師の水中での体験を引き合いに出したことに対し、ボイルは漁師が無学であるという理由でそうした証言そのものの信憑性を否定し、それが受け入れられたことが示されている。

「エジンバラ学派」への批判

サージェントはボイルの議論を分析し、たとえば漁師の証言を拒否する議論にしても、人間の体の検出装置としての信頼性そのものを問題にしているのであって、単に無学な漁師であるからといって却下しているわけではないことを示した。

この問題は実験的手法の使えない因果仮説一般について回る問題である。したがって、健全な合理的判断が原因となってある理論が受け入れられた、という因果的仮説も、きちんと立証しようとすれば同じような困難に直面することになる。

しかし両者の関係は完全に対称というわけにはいかない。コールが指摘するように、科学に外的な要因と科学的知識の詳細な内容（たとえば E=mc² という式の正確な形）の連関が示されたことはないが、合理的判断に基づく説明の場合、実験結果との突き合わせなど、詳細な内容に立ち入った連関付けが可能である。

この節の加筆が望まれています。

ラボラトリー・スタディーズ（研究室研究）

ブルーノ・ラトゥールの研究がある。

この節の加筆が望まれています。

アクター・ネットワーク論

この節の加筆が望まれています。

科学技術社会論 (STS)

STS（Science,Technology and Society）とは、科学技術と社会との関連について教育・研究史、あるべき方向を見出そうとする社会的な動きの1つ。"科学技術を社会的文脈のなかで捉える"ところにその特徴があり、科学技術に関する歴史・哲学・科学政策論・知識論などが絡み合った学際的な性格を強く持ったものが多い。ただしその具体的な内容は多様であるため、きまったディシプリンがあるわけではない^[7]。

1960年代以降、欧米の大学を中心にSTSについての研究が始まったのがきっかけであるが、STSの考え方は科学者・技術者のみに求められるべきではないとの見方から、科学教育における考え方としても浸透しつつある。

公衆の科学理解 (PUS)

この節の加筆が望まれています。

脚注

[ヘルプ]

^ 1931年科学史・技術史国際会議で、ソ連科学史家はマルクス主義史観的科学観を展開した。なかでもゲッセンは、ニュートンの時代の社会・経済における技術的問題群が、ニュートンを力学の一般的理論構築へ向かわせた、と主張した。史料的裏付けに乏しいものの、欧米の若手科学史家に多大な影響を与えていた。こうしたことから、社会と科学の内容の連関を問うスタンスは、マルクス主義史観的科学観と同一視される傾向があった。
^ 成定薫『科学と社会のインターフェイス』（平凡社、1994）
^ Merton, R. K. "The Matthew Effect in Science" Science, 159, 1968.
^ イムレ・ラカトシュ,アラン・マスグレーヴ編『批判と知識の成長』1970＝森博監訳,木鐸社,1985,pp.21-22；『科学革命における本質的緊張』みすず書房,pp.352-353
^ クーン『科学革命の構造』中山茂訳、みすず書房、1971年,p.212］
^ イムレ・ラカトシュ,アラン・マスグレーヴ編『批判と知識の成長』森博監訳,木鐸社,1985.4,pp.90-98)
^ 川村康文（編著）『STS教育読本』（かもがわ出版、2003）p8-26

参考文献

日本語書・日本語訳書

R. K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure: Toward the Codification of Theory and Research, (Free Press, 1949).（森東吾・森好夫・金沢実・中島竜太郎訳『社会理論と社会構造』みすず書房, 1961年）
R. K. Merton, The Sociology of Science: An Episodic Memoir, (Southern Illinois University Press, 1979).（成定薫訳『科学社会学の歩み――エピソードで綴る回想録』サイエンス社, 1983年）
M. J. Mulkay, Science and the sociology of knowledge, (G. Allen & Unwin, 1979)（堀喜望訳『科学と知識社会学』紀伊国屋書店，1985)
吉岡斉『科学社会学の構想 : ハイサイエンス批判』（リブロポート, 1986）
有本章『マートン科学社会学の研究—そのパラダイムの形成と展開』（福村出版, 1987）
成定薫他編著『科学見直し叢書』木鐸社、1987-91年
- 『科学と非科学のあいだ』（第1巻）
- 『制度としての科学』（第2巻）
- 『科学における論争・発見』（第3巻）
- 『科学とは何だろうか』（第4巻）
フォーラムSTS『サイエンスを再演する　パート 1』学文社 1990
フォーラムSTS『サイエンスを再演する　パート 2』学文社 1992
Bruno Latour, Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society,(Open University Press, 1987)（川崎勝,高田紀代志(訳)『科学が作られているとき―人類学的考察』産業図書，1999)
金森修『サイエンス・ウォーズ』(東京大学出版会，2000）
金森修, 中島秀人（編）『科学論の現在』（勁草書房，2002)
小林傳司『公共のための科学技術』（玉川大学出版部, 2002）
藤垣裕子『専門知と公共性―科学技術社会論の構築へ向けて』（東京大学出版会, 2003）
川村康文（編著）『STS教育読本』（かもがわ出版、2003）
小林傳司『誰が科学技術について考えるのか―コンセンサス会議という実験』（名古屋大学出版会, 2004）
藤垣裕子『科学技術社会論の技法』（東京大学出版会, 2005）
成定薫「科学社会学の成立と展開」『科学論』第10巻、岩波書店〈岩波講座現代思想〉、東京、1994年。ISBN 4-00-010540-X。

西洋書

Barry Barnes, Scientific knowledge and sociological theory-- Routledge & K. Paul, 1974. -- (Monographs in social theory)
Barry Barnes and David Edge(eds.), Science in context : readings in the sociology of science -- Open University Press, 1982
Sheila Jasanoff et al.(eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies -- revised ed.. -- Sage Publications, 1995
Sergio Sismondo, Science Without Myth: On Constructions, Reality, and Social Knowledge (Suny Series in Science, Technology, and Society) -- State University of New York Press, 1996.
Barry Barnes, David Bloor & John Henry, Scientific knowledge : a sociological analysis -- University of Chicago Press, 1996
David J. Hess, Science studies : an advanced introduction -- New York University, 1997
Mario Biagioli(ed.), The science studies reader -- Routledge, 1999
Massimiano Bucchi(translation by Adrian Belton), Science in society : an introduction to social studies of science-- 1st English language ed. -- Routledge, 2004
Sergio Sismondo, An introduction to science and technology studies -- Blackwell, 2004
Steven Yearley, Making sense of science : understanding the social study of science -- Sage Publications, 2005
Wenda K. Bauchspies, Jennifer Croissant, and Sal Restivo, Science, technology, and society : a sociological approach -- Blackwell, 2006
Robert K. Merton; Norman W. Storer (1979-09-15) (英語). The Sociology of Science:Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (New edition版 ed.). イリノイ州: The University of Chicago Press. pp. 636. ISBN 9780226520926 2009年8月2日閲覧。.

TranPedia

Wikipedia Translation from Japanese to English

2017년 3월 11일 토요일