Science as the Research Object of Social Sciences

Abstract

This article investigates how scientific practices are studied as objects of research. It asks how the social sciences and the humanities, particularly the disciplines of anthropology and sociology, have approached science in the process of their disciplinary development. Culture-oriented analyses of classical anthropology can be considered as early science studies. In the following periods, a growing body of research has emerged that focuses on science as a thinking activity per se. Orientation towards this kind of research indicates a transition from an understanding of science as a field dependent on macro-culture to a perspective that views it as a process of cultural construction in its own right. This shift in approach is marked by constructivist analyses offered by ethnographies of science. The article, discussing the shifting understandings of science, takes up leading research to examine how science involves continuous intellectual engagement and enables the capacity to produce contextual objectivity.

Keywords

• Early science study
• ethnography and anthropology of science
• science as a scientific object
• science as a cultural object
• sociology of science

Sosyal Bilimlerin Araştırma Nesnesi Olarak Bilim

Abstract

Bu makale, bilimsel pratiklerin bir araştırma nesnesi olarak nasıl ele alındığını soruşturmaktadır. Makalenin odağı, antropoloji ve sosyoloji disiplinleri başta olmak üzere sosyal ve beşerî bilimlerin kendi disipliner gelişimleri sürecinde bilime nasıl yaklaştıkları sorusudur. Klasik antropolojinin kültür merkezli analizleri erken dönem bilim çalışmaları olarak sayılabilir. İlerleyen dönemlerde, bilimi başlı başına bir düşünme etkinliği olarak ele alan araştırmalar ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu tür araştırmalara yöneliş, bilimi makro kültüre bağımlı bir alan olarak kabul eden anlayıştan kendi başına bir kültürel inşa süreci olarak gören bir anlayışa geçiş sağlandığını göstermektedir. Bu yaklaşım farklılaşmasında bilim etnografilerinin teşvik ettiği inşacı çözümlemeler belirleyici olmuştur. Makale, bilim araştırmalarında gözlemlediğimiz kavrayış değişimini tartışırken, öncü çalışmalara odaklanarak, bilimin bir tür süreklilik arz eden entelektüel faaliyet içerdiğini ve bağlamsal nesnellik üretme kapasitesine olanak sağladığını ileri sürmektedir. 

Keywords

• Erken dönem bilim çalışması
• bilim etnografisi ve antropolojisi
• bilimsel nesne olarak bilim
• kültürel nesne olarak bilim
• bilim sosyolojisi

References

1. Acton, H. B. (1951). Comte’s positivism and the science of society. Philosophy, 26(99), 291-310. google scholar
2. Ansal, H., Ekinci, M. ve Kaşdoğan, D. (2018). Bilim, teknoloji ve toplum çalışmaları’na bir giriş. Toplum ve Bilim, 144, 9-38. google scholar
3. Ben-David, J., & Sullivan, T. A. (1975). Sociology of science. Annual Review of Sociology, 1(1), 203-222. google scholar
4. Bloor, D. ([1976] 1991). Knowledge and social imagery (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. google scholar
5. Bremmer, J. (1983). Scapegoat rituals in Ancient Greece. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 87, 299-320. google scholar
6. Bucchi, M. (2004). Science in society: An introduction to social studies of science (A. Belton Trans.). Routledge. google scholar
7. Calhoun, C. (2003). Remembering Robert K. Merton. Items and issues, 4(2-3), 12-14. google scholar
8. Cetina, K. K. (1991). Merton’s sociology of science: The first and the last sociology of science? Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 20, No. 4: 522-526. google scholar

9. Charlesworth, M. J. (1993). Bioethics in a liberal society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
10. Charlesworth, M. J., Dussart, F., & Morphy, H. ([2005] 2017). Aboriginal religions in Australia: An anthology of recent writings. Routledge. google scholar
11. Charlesworth, M. J., Farrall, L., Stokes, T., & Turnbull, D. (1989). Life among the scientists an anthropological study of an Australian scientific community. Oxford University Press. google scholar
12. Comte, A. ([1844] 2015). Pozitif felsefe dersleri ve pozitif anlayış üzerine konuşma (E. Ataçay, Çev.). Ankara: Bilgesu Yayıncılık. google scholar
13. Comte, A. ([1853] 2000). The positive philosophy of Auguste Comte (H. Martineau Trans.). Kitchener Ontario: Batoche Books. google scholar
14. Durgun, F. (2014). Rönesans’ tan 19. yüzyıla Avrupa tarihyazımında ilerleme fikri, dönemselleştirme ve Orta Çağ Avrupa Tarihi algısı. İnsan & Toplum Dergisi, 3(6), 283-304. google scholar
15. Durkheim, E. ([1895] 2004). Sosyolojik yöntemin kuralları (C. Saraçoğlu, Çev.). İstanbul: Bordo Siyah Klasik Yayınlar. google scholar
16. Durkheim, E. ([1912] 2005). Dini hayatin ilkel biçimleri (F. Aydın, Çev.). İstanbul: Ataç Yayınları. google scholar
17. Fleck, L. ([1935] 1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact (F. Bradley & T. J. Trenn Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. google scholar
18. Foucault, M. ([1976] 2002). Toplumu savunmak gerekir (Ş. Aktaş, Çev.). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. google scholar
19. Franklin, S. (1995). Science as culture, cultures of science. Annual review of anthropology, 24(1), 163-184. google scholar
20. Freese, J. & Peterson, D. (2017). Replication in social science. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 147-165. google scholar
21. Gavroğlu, K. ([2004] 2006). Bilimlerin geçmişinden tarih üretmek (A. Çokona, Çev.). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları. google scholar
22. Gieryn, T. F. ([1982] 2010). Durkheim’ın bilimsel bilgi sosyolojisi (B. Balkız, Çev.). B. Balkız ve V. S. Öğütle (Eds.), Bilim sosyolojisi incelemeleri, içinde (s. 452-92). Ankara: Doğu-Batı Yayınları. google scholar
23. Gould, S. J. ([2003] 2011). The hedgehog, the fox, and the magister’s pox: Mending the gap between science and the humanities. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. google scholar
24. Hacking, I. (1992). The Self-vindication of the laboratory sciences. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 29-64). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. google scholar
25. Hacking, I. (2002). Historical ontology. In P. Gardenfors, J. Wolenski & K. Kijania-Placek (Eds.), In the scope of logic, methodology, and philosophy of science (pp. 583-600). Springer. google scholar
26. Hacking, I. (2012). ‘Language, truth and reason’ 30 years later. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 43(4), 599-609. google scholar
27. Harman, G. (2016). Latour, Bruno (1947-). The Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. Taylor and google scholar
28. Francis. Erişim Tarihi: 29 Mayıs, 2022, https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/biographical/latour-bruno-1947/v-1. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-DD106-1 google scholar
29. Hollis, M., & Lukes, S. (Eds.). (1982). Rationality and relativism. Massachusetts: MIT Press. google scholar
30. Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T. ([1944] 2014). Aydınlanmanın diyalektiği (N. Ülner ve E. Özturhan Karadoğan, Çev.). İstanbul: Kabalcı Yayıncılık. google scholar
31. Hoyningen-Huene, P. (1992). The ınterrelations between the philosophy, history, and sociology of science in Thomas Kuhn‘s theory of scientific development. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 43(4), 487-501. google scholar
32. Judson, H. F. (1979). The eighth day of creation. Simon & Schuster. google scholar
33. Kallery, M., Psillos, D. (2004). Anthropomorphism and animism in early years science: Why teachers use them, how they conceptualise them and what are their views on their use. Research in science education, 34, 291-311. google scholar
34. Kirsner, D. (2012). Max Charlesworth: A philosopher in the world. Sophia, 51(4), 561-569. google scholar
35. Kirsner, D. (2014, June 13). Obituary: Max Charlesworth. The Sydney Morning Herald. google scholar
36. Kusch, M. ([2012] 2020). Bilim sosyolojisi: Bloor, Collins, Latour (T. Fırıncı Orman, Çev.). J. R. Brown (Ed.), Bilim felsefesi, içinde (s. 236-61). Ankara: Fol Kitap. google scholar
37. Kusch, M. (2010). Hacking’s historical epistemology: A critique of styles of reasoning. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 41(2), 158-173. google scholar
38. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. ([1979] 1986). Laboratory life (2nd. ed.). Princeton University Press. google scholar
39. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. New York: Oxford University Press. google scholar
40. Latour, B. ([1991] 2012). We have never been modern (C. Porter Trans.). Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. google scholar
41. Layne, L. L. (2000). The cultural fix: An anthropological contribution to science and technology studies. Science, technology, & human values, 25(3), 352-379. google scholar
42. Lorimer, D. (1988). Theoretical racism in Late-Victorian Anthropology, 1870-1900. Victorian Studies, 31(3), 405-430. google scholar
43. Malinowski, B. ([1944] 1992). Bilimsel bir kültür teorisi (S. Özkal, Çev.). İstanbul: Kabalcı Yayınevi. google scholar
44. Malinowski, B. ([1948] 1990). Büyü, bilim ve din (S. Özkal, Çev.). İstanbul: Kabalcı Yayınevi. google scholar
45. McKie, D. (1960). The origins and foundation of the Royal Society of London. notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 15(1), 1-37. google scholar
46. Merton, R. K. (1938). Science, technology, and society in seventeenth century England. Osiris, 4, 360632. google scholar
47. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. google scholar
48. Monivas, J. R. (2007). Science and religion in the sociology of Emile Durkheim. European Journal of Science and Theology, 3(1), 17-30. google scholar
49. Olby, R. C. (1994). The path to the double helix: the discovery of DNA. University of Washington Press. google scholar
50. Öğütle, V. S. ve Balkız, B. (2010). Bilim sosyolojisi üzerine bazı tespitler ve gündem önerileri. B. Balkız ve V. S. Öğütle (Eds.), Bilim sosyolojisi incelemeleri, içinde (s. 11-28). Ankara: Doğu- Batı Yayınları. google scholar
51. Peacock, J. L. (1981). Durkheim and the social anthropology of culture. Social Forces, 59(4), 996-1008. google scholar
52. Popoveniuc, B. (2014). Self-reflexivity. The ultimate end of knowledge. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 163, 204-213. google scholar
53. Rainger, R. (1978). Race, politics, and science: the Anthropological Society of London in the 1860s. Victorian Studies, 22(1), 51-70. google scholar
54. Reisch, G. A. ([2005] 2016). Soğuk savaş bilim felsefesini nasıl dönüştürdü: Mantığın buzlu yokuşlarına. (M. Mete, Çev.). İstanbul: İdea Yayınevi. google scholar
55. Roscoe, P. B. (1995). The perils of ‘positivism’ in cultural anthropology. American Anthropologist, 97(3), 492-504. google scholar
56. Sarton, G. ([1927]1928). Introduction to the history of science, Vol. I.—From Homer to Omar Khayyam. Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l, 106. google scholar
57. Segal, R. A. (1996). Tylor’s theory of myth as primitive science. The sum of our choices, 70-84. google scholar
58. Segal, R. A. (2002). Myth as primitive philosophy: The case of E.B. Tylor. In K. Schilbrack (Ed.), Thinking through Myths: Philosophical Perspectives (pp. 18-45). Routledge. google scholar
59. Segal, R. A. (2021). Myth. In R.A. Segal & N. P. Roubekas (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to the study of religion (pp. 348-360). John Wiley & Sons. google scholar
60. Sera-Shriar, E. (2015). The making of British anthropology, 1813-1871. Routledge. google scholar
61. Sismondo, S. (2010). An introduction to science and technology studies (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. google scholar
62. Siwecka, S. (2011). Genesis and development of the “medical fact”. Thought style and scientific evidence in the epistemology of Ludwik Fleck. Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental and Neuro Sciences, 4(2), 37-9. google scholar
63. Snow, C. P. ([1959] 2012). The two cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
64. Traweek, S. ([1988] 1992). Beamtimes and lifetimes. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. google scholar
65. Tylor, E. B. ([1871] 2010). Primitive culture:Researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, art, and custom, Volumes 1 & 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
66. Tylor, E. B. (2021). The science of culture [1873]. In P. A. Erickson & L. D. Murphy (Eds.), Readings for a history of anthropological theory (6th ed.) (pp. 19-31). University of Toronto Press. google scholar
67. Watson, J. D. & Crick, F. H. (1953). Molecular structure of nucleic acids: A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature, 171(4356), 737-738. google scholar
68. Weinberg, A. M. (1967). Can technology replace social engineering? American Behavioral Scientist, 10(9), 7-10. google scholar
69. Weiner, A. B. (1995). Culture and our discontents. American Anthropologist, 14-21. google scholar
70. Wilson, E. O. ([1998] 1999). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. Vintage. google scholar
71. Woolgar, S. (1988). Knowledge and reflexivity: new frontiers in the sociology of knowledge. London: Sage. google scholar
72. Ziman, J. M. (1987). An introduction to science studies: The philosophical and social aspects of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar