The Golem : Harry M. Collins :Sociology of science is to science as pornography is to sex. The put down, with its implications that the intrusions of sociologists into the lab are little better than voyeurism, appeals strongly to some scientists. The social scientists, with their irritating air of demystification, and their obsession with text and rhetoric, can only ever write about science, and so always miss something essential which is given only to those who are actually doing it. The tensions this attitude embodies follow the rise of a generation of social researchers influenced by Thomas Kuhn, who wanted to probe exactly how scientific facts are established. It was either as irrelevant to real scientists, as pornography is to lovers. Or it was part of the general antirationalist turn in intellectual life, promoted by a legion of relativists, postmodernists, deconstructionists, neoromantics and other epistemological anarchists, which natural scientists must repudiate whenever possible. All of which makes the appearance of a book by two of the leading British contributors to the new sociology of science, written to bring their work to a wider audience, something of an event.
The Golem at Large
Not only do scientists often not get it right, but those who get it right succeed at least partly ahd they get everyone else to agree with their definition of what getting it right means. The reader might come to the conclusion that science is not credible particularly with complex or difficult to measure problems. Infectious Disease Physician Career Opportunity. Amazon Music Stream millions of songs.Thanks for telling us about the problem. For pich, is wrongly painted as a manipulative bumbler, particularly if you are NOT a scientist. Its worth the read. Error rating book.
Friend Reviews. It is this coolins of facts which is really meant to be science that instills an incomplete understanding of how these facts are gathered. Kindle Cloud Reader Read instantly in your browser. Highly recommend for anyone who wants to better know and understand science as a source of truth.
To challenge the Gods and tear down monuments is a recurring element in the history of Homo sapiens. What everyone should know about science is not scientific knowledge, but the controversial nature of the scientific method, i. Science is done by man and man is fallible, ambitious, corrupt. Who, if not scientists themselves, should know this better? But who, if not scientists, could talk about this in public?