Sosyal Bilimlerin Araştırma Nesnesi Olarak Bilim

Yıl 2022, Sayı: 2, 69 - 96, 29.12.2022

Mahmut Furkan Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.26650/IAR2022-1165893

Öz

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. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

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

Teşekkür

Konuya dair fikirlerini paylaşan kıymetli hocam Oya Topdemir Koçyiğit’e ve makale yazımı sırasında ve yazım sonrasında değerlendirmelerinde destek olan kıymetli hocalarım Ecevit Barış Özener’e ve Güldem Baykal Büyüksaraç’a teşekkürlerimi sunarım.

Science as the Research Object of Social Sciences

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

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

Kaynakça

• Acton, H. B. (1951). Comte’s positivism and the science of society. Philosophy, 26(99), 291-310. google scholar
• Ansal, H., Ekinci, M. ve Kaşdoğan, D. (2018). Bilim, teknoloji ve toplum çalışmaları’na bir giriş. Toplum ve Bilim, 144, 9-38. google scholar
• Ben-David, J., & Sullivan, T. A. (1975). Sociology of science. Annual Review of Sociology, 1(1), 203-222. google scholar
• Bloor, D. ([1976] 1991). Knowledge and social imagery (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. google scholar
• Bremmer, J. (1983). Scapegoat rituals in Ancient Greece. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 87, 299-320. google scholar
• Bucchi, M. (2004). Science in society: An introduction to social studies of science (A. Belton Trans.). Routledge. google scholar
• Calhoun, C. (2003). Remembering Robert K. Merton. Items and issues, 4(2-3), 12-14. google scholar
• 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
• Charlesworth, M. J. (1993). Bioethics in a liberal society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
• Charlesworth, M. J., Dussart, F., & Morphy, H. ([2005] 2017). Aboriginal religions in Australia: An anthology of recent writings. Routledge. google scholar
• 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
• Comte, A. ([1844] 2015). Pozitif felsefe dersleri ve pozitif anlayış üzerine konuşma (E. Ataçay, Çev.). Ankara: Bilgesu Yayıncılık. google scholar
• Comte, A. ([1853] 2000). The positive philosophy of Auguste Comte (H. Martineau Trans.). Kitchener Ontario: Batoche Books. google scholar
• 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
• Durkheim, E. ([1895] 2004). Sosyolojik yöntemin kuralları (C. Saraçoğlu, Çev.). İstanbul: Bordo Siyah Klasik Yayınlar. google scholar
• Durkheim, E. ([1912] 2005). Dini hayatin ilkel biçimleri (F. Aydın, Çev.). İstanbul: Ataç Yayınları. google scholar
• Fleck, L. ([1935] 1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact (F. Bradley & T. J. Trenn Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. google scholar
• Foucault, M. ([1976] 2002). Toplumu savunmak gerekir (Ş. Aktaş, Çev.). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. google scholar
• Franklin, S. (1995). Science as culture, cultures of science. Annual review of anthropology, 24(1), 163-184. google scholar
• Freese, J. & Peterson, D. (2017). Replication in social science. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 147-165. google scholar
• Gavroğlu, K. ([2004] 2006). Bilimlerin geçmişinden tarih üretmek (A. Çokona, Çev.). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları. google scholar
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Harman, G. (2016). Latour, Bruno (1947-). The Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. Taylor and google scholar
• 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
• Hollis, M., & Lukes, S. (Eds.). (1982). Rationality and relativism. Massachusetts: MIT Press. google scholar
• Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T. ([1944] 2014). Aydınlanmanın diyalektiği (N. Ülner ve E. Özturhan Karadoğan, Çev.). İstanbul: Kabalcı Yayıncılık. google scholar
• 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
• Judson, H. F. (1979). The eighth day of creation. Simon & Schuster. google scholar
• 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
• Kirsner, D. (2012). Max Charlesworth: A philosopher in the world. Sophia, 51(4), 561-569. google scholar
• Kirsner, D. (2014, June 13). Obituary: Max Charlesworth. The Sydney Morning Herald. google scholar
• 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
• 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
• Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. ([1979] 1986). Laboratory life (2nd. ed.). Princeton University Press. google scholar
• Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. New York: Oxford University Press. google scholar
• Latour, B. ([1991] 2012). We have never been modern (C. Porter Trans.). Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. google scholar
• 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
• Lorimer, D. (1988). Theoretical racism in Late-Victorian Anthropology, 1870-1900. Victorian Studies, 31(3), 405-430. google scholar
• Malinowski, B. ([1944] 1992). Bilimsel bir kültür teorisi (S. Özkal, Çev.). İstanbul: Kabalcı Yayınevi. google scholar
• Malinowski, B. ([1948] 1990). Büyü, bilim ve din (S. Özkal, Çev.). İstanbul: Kabalcı Yayınevi. google scholar
• 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
• Merton, R. K. (1938). Science, technology, and society in seventeenth century England. Osiris, 4, 360632. google scholar
• Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. google scholar
• 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
• Olby, R. C. (1994). The path to the double helix: the discovery of DNA. University of Washington Press. google scholar
• 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
• Peacock, J. L. (1981). Durkheim and the social anthropology of culture. Social Forces, 59(4), 996-1008. google scholar
• Popoveniuc, B. (2014). Self-reflexivity. The ultimate end of knowledge. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 163, 204-213. google scholar
• Rainger, R. (1978). Race, politics, and science: the Anthropological Society of London in the 1860s. Victorian Studies, 22(1), 51-70. google scholar
• Reisch, G. A. ([2005] 2016). Soğuk savaş bilim felsefesini nasıl dönüştürdü: Mantığın buzlu yokuşlarına. (M. Mete, Çev.). İstanbul: İdea Yayınevi. google scholar
• Roscoe, P. B. (1995). The perils of ‘positivism’ in cultural anthropology. American Anthropologist, 97(3), 492-504. google scholar
• 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
• Segal, R. A. (1996). Tylor’s theory of myth as primitive science. The sum of our choices, 70-84. google scholar
• 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
• 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
• Sera-Shriar, E. (2015). The making of British anthropology, 1813-1871. Routledge. google scholar
• Sismondo, S. (2010). An introduction to science and technology studies (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. google scholar
• 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
• Snow, C. P. ([1959] 2012). The two cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
• Traweek, S. ([1988] 1992). Beamtimes and lifetimes. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. google scholar
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Weinberg, A. M. (1967). Can technology replace social engineering? American Behavioral Scientist, 10(9), 7-10. google scholar
• Weiner, A. B. (1995). Culture and our discontents. American Anthropologist, 14-21. google scholar
• Wilson, E. O. ([1998] 1999). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. Vintage. google scholar
• Woolgar, S. (1988). Knowledge and reflexivity: new frontiers in the sociology of knowledge. London: Sage. google scholar
• Ziman, J. M. (1987). An introduction to science studies: The philosophical and social aspects of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar