Sociocultural Factors
The theorem states that sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time.
Contents
Pre-History
Numerous philosophers of science have engaged with the role of sociocultural factors in the development of science, prior to the TSC’s conception.
James Brown’s contribution to the dialogue surrounding this topic is made most clear in his book, Who Rules in Science. In it, Brown describes several cases in the history of science that demonstrate sociocultural factors affecting theory acceptance. Examples cited in this volume include the permissibility of mystical and anti-rational ideas in Weimar Germany, and how this heightened the appeal of scientific theories on causality and quantum phenomena, along with tension between Louis Pasteur’s socio-political allegiances and work in crystallography. Brown also makes reference to the four tenets of David Bloor’s strong program, which advises historians on how to study science scientifically. According to Bloor, an historical reconstruction of science should account for:
- Causality: A proper account of science would be causal, that is, it should be concerned with the conditions that bring about belief or states of knowledge.1
- Impartiality: It would be impartial with respect to truth and falsity, rationality or irrationality, success or failure. Both sides of these dichotomies will require explanation.1
- Symmetry: It would be symmetrical in its style of explanation. The same types of causes would explain, say, true and false, [rational and irrational] beliefs.1
- Reflexivity: In principle its patterns of explanation would have to be applicable to sociology itself. Like the requirement of symmetry, this is a response to the need to seek for general explanations. It is an obvious requirement of principle; otherwise sociology would be a standing refutation of its own theories.1
Another eminent philosopher that helped shape the discussion of sociocultural factors in science is Dudley Shapere. Shapere believes that scientific practice is laden with inseparable social factors. He provides two ways of explicating this relationship. His strong thesis states that there is no “internal” factor guiding scientific development independently of non-scientific factors. His weak thesis states, while there are such internal factors, they are insufficient by themselves to guide science, and must be supplemented by “external” factors.2
The logical positivists also upheld explicit views on the role of sociocultural factors in scientific development. They held a traditional view of internal and external (sociocultural) factors. To the positivists, internal factors are merely propositions about the world (both general and singular). External factors are those born in the domains of society, economics, politics, culture, personal and collective religion, and the like.
For Imre Lakatos, the difference between internal and external factors depended on the accepted methodology of the time. This distinction allowed Lakatos to believe that it was rational for scientists to stick to a theory despite all the anomalies if there was no better theory on the market.2
History
The current formulation of the sociocultural factors theorem has remained unchanged since it’s initial debut in the TSC. It states that sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time.3
Current View
Sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time. Factors such as individuals and group interests, power, religion, politics, and economics can affect theory acceptance either in violation or in full accordance with the Laws of Scientific Change. A third outcome would be one in which it is unclear if a historical case of theory acceptance was in accord or in violation of the Laws of Scientific Change.
Hypothetical cases of theory acceptance in violation of the Laws include the Lost Manuscript Case and the Elimination Case.3 In the former, a community accepts a theory on the basis of a single manuscript which no member of the community has memorized in whole and which cannot be copied. In this case, should the manuscript be destroyed or lost then the theory itself would be lost with no means of replacing it in the community’s scientific mosaic. Such a case would a violation of the First Law due to sociocultural factors. In Elimination Case, all members of a community that adhere to a politically dissatisfactory theory are either killed or driven out of the community by social authorities allowing a theory that does not satisfy the method of the time into the mosaic. Such a case would be a violation of the Second Law due to sociocultural factors. An historical example of this violation can be found in the forced acceptance of Lysenkoism in Soviet Russia under Stalin. All Soviet geneticists that did not accept soft inheritance were sent to labour camps or executed under the Stalinist regime.
A hypothetical case of theory acceptance in accord with the Laws of Scientific Change is the High Priest Case.3 In this example a community bears a mosaic that houses the belief that an infallible high priest always grasps the true essence of things. The high priest has the ability to manipulate the mosaic and these manipulations will be accepted because the method employed dictates this. In this case, an individual’s interests dictate which theories get accepted into the mosaic. Yet, the method of this mosaic is a deductive consequence of the infallibility of the high priest, making the acceptance of any theory in accord with their wishes consonant with the Laws of Scientific Change.
Open Questions
- How do sociocultural factors affect method employment?
- Do factors such as individual and collective interests influence the process of scientific change? If so, does this happen in violation of the laws of science change?
Related Articles
- Assessment
- Role of Methodology
Notes
Authors
Stephen Watt, 2016
References
#scite could not render a citation text for reference "Shapere (1986)" because type "journal" was not assigned to a template.
