STUDIA MAGISTERSKIE I DOKTORANCKIE

DR HAB. RICCARDO CAMPA

The aim of this course is to familiarize students with the sociological study of science - science seen as one of the great institutions of contemporary society. Both the influence of cultural and social structures on scientific knowledge and the impact of science and technology on society will be analyzed through the use of the methods and theories of sociology.

30 hours (first semester/ two hours a week), konwersatorium. The lecturer will present one topic of the program in the first hour and will require the participation of students in a free discussion in the second hour.

No marks. Students will be asked to attend the course regularly and to participate actively. At the end of the course, they will be asked to write a short paper (3/4 pages) in English about one of the themes of the program and to present it in class. Those who fulfill these requirements will obtain a "zaliczenie".

With regard to the influence of society on science and technology, great attention will be paid to the work of Robert K. Merton - putative father of the sociology of science - and his major substantive contributions: e.g., normative structure of science, reward system, San Matthew effect, theory of multiple discoveries, ambivalence of scientists, etc. By following the theoretical orientation of Merton, Sztompka, and Bunge, sociology itself (that is, the instrument) will be treated as a scientific discipline among others, aiming to achieve certified knowledge. This rationalistic approach should permit us to avoid the epistemological problem of reflexivity, which undermines the heuristic validity of the relativist-constructivist approach. The main ideas of the post-Mertonian schools in the sociology of science will also be examined, especially Bloor’s strong program and the claims of the relativist-constructivist movement (Collins, Knorr-Cetina, Krohn and others). These readings will permit students to familiarize themselves with the climate of the so-called "Science Wars" which presently characterizes the meta-scientific debate. The debate in the philosophy and sociology of science has probably never been so heated as now. In recent centuries, individual scholars or entire schools of thought have engaged in various disputes over different (sometimes conflicting, sometimes mutually enriching) images of science. More recently the situation has changed significantly: in the present-day debate, not only is a particular image of science questioned, but science itself, as an institution and as a specific type of knowledge is challenged. In the past, the main aim of the philosophy and sociology of science was to establish the boundaries between science and other forms of knowledge rationally and empirically. This distinction has, in principle, also had to be functional for the detection and refutation of pseudo-science. That is, of non-scientific knowledge presented under the denomination of "science" in order to get social and academic credits. Today pseudoscience seems to be a minor problem. Science has gained such a bad name that it is sometimes easier to obtain credit by presenting ideas explicitly devoid of any connection with laboratories, experiments, mathematics, and rigorous reasoning. Now the main distinction in the market of ideas seems to be that between science and anti-science, or more precisely between pro-science philosophy/sociology and anti-science philosophy/sociology. The selected bibliography should help students to understand the dynamics of this metascientific debate.

1. Merton R. (1973), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chigago, University of Chicago Press.
2. Ziman J. M. (1984), An Introduction to Science Studies, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
3. Ziman J. M. (2000), Real Science: What It Is and What It Means, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
4. Bunge M. (1998), Social Science under Debate: A Philosophical Perspective, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
5. Sztompka P. (1986), Robert K. Merton: An Intellectual Profile, Hong Kong, MacMillan.
6. Campa R. (2001), Epistemological Dimensions of Robert Merton’s Sociology, Torun, Nicholas Copernicus University Press.
7. Campa, R. M. (1998), "The Epistemological Relevance of Merton’s Sociology of Science." Ruch Filozoficzny, Tom LV, No. 2.
8. Barnes S. B. and Dolby G. A. (1970), "The Scientific Ethos: A deviant view point", Paris, Archives Européennes de Sociologie: Tome XI, Numéro I: 3-25.
9. Bloor, D. (1976), Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
10. Collins, H. M. (1983), "An Empirical Relativist Programme in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge." In Science Observed, ed. K. D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay, 85-113. London: Sage.
11. Knorr-Cetina K. D. (1982). "The Constructivist Programme in the Sociology of Science: Retreats or Advances?" Social Studies of Science, Vol. 12: 320-324.
12. Krohn, R. (1982). "On Gieryn on the ‘Relativist/Constructivist’ Programme in the Sociology of Science: Naïveté and Reaction." Social Studies of Science, Vol. 12: 325-328.
13. Gieryn, T. F. (1982a). "Relativist/Constructivist Programmes in the Sociology of Science: Redundance and Retreat." Social Studies of Science, Vol. 12: 279-297.
14. Gieryn, T. F. (1982b). "Not-Last Words: Worn-Out Dichotomies in the Sociology of Science." Social Studies of Science, Vol. 12: 329-335.
15. Bunge, M. (1996). "In Praise of Intolerance to Charlatanism in Academia." The Flight from Science and Reason, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 775, June.
16. Horgan, J. (1997). The end of science, Broadway Books, New York.

1. Merton R., "The normative structure of science", in Merton (1973).
2. Merton R., "Singletons and Multiples in Science", in Merton (1973).
3. Merton R., "The Matthew Effect in Science", in Merton (1973).

4. Merton R., "Age, Aging, and Age Structure in Science", in Merton (1973).

1. Bunge M. (1998): 229-242.
2. Sztompka P. (1986).
3. Campa R. (2001): 143-161, 175-191.
4. Campa, R. (1998).

1. Barnes S. B. and Dolby G. A. (1970).
2. Bloor, D. (1976).
3. Collins, H. M. (1983).
4. Knorr-Cetina K. D. (1982).
5. Krohn, R. (1982).

1. Gieryn, T. F. (1982a).
2. Gieryn, T. F. (1982b).
3. Bunge M. (1996).
4. Horgan, J. (1997).

 [ Home ] [ Up ] [ Next ]

Copyright 2004-2011 © Riccardo Campa