HLST200 Study Guide - Spring 2018, Comprehensive Midterm Notes - Physics, Earth, Chemistry
12 Oct 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
HLST200
MIDTERM EXAM
STUDY GUIDE
Fall 2018
Unit #1
1. describe some of the problems associated with producing a definition of science.
This latter issue—the question of the social construction of science—led to the “science wars,” a long,
heated, and often bitter debate during the 1990s. On one side of the battle stood the “postmodernists” and
their supporters from a range of disciplines who argued that there was no such thing as scientific
objectivity or Truth. The postmodernist school contended that science was essentially socially constructed
and that it often served elitist ends or hidden agendas of one sort or another. On the other side of the
battle were the “realists,” primarily scientists and their supporters, who held fast to the idea that science
was objective. The realists charged that the postmodernists often knew nothing about the science they
criticized; some scientists charged that the postmodernists were criticizing science for their own political
ends (Gross and Levitt).
1. describe and explain the difference between “weak” and “strong” approaches to the social
construction of scientific knowledge.
The SSK approach uses a relativistic analatical framework that stresses that failed
or false scientific theories deserve as much attention as true or successful ones and
that one must examine carefully the social context in which scientist work. To the
irritation of scientist the relativist approach was, in some cases taken to
extremes.The weak programme is more of a description of an approach than an
organised movement. The term is applied to historians, sociologists and philosophers
of science who merely cite sociological factors as being responsible for those beliefs
that went wrong. The strong programme is particularly associated with the work of
two groups: the 'Edinburgh School' (David Bloor, Barry Barnes, and their colleagues
at the Science Studies Unit at the University of Edinburgh) in the 1970s and '80s,
and the 'Bath School' (Harry Collins and others at the University of Bath) in the same
period. Those associated with the weak programme would hardly describe
themselves using this term, which is clearly invidious; still, strong
programme advocates are thinking of the "weak program" when they lump together
historians, sociologists and philosophers of science cite sociological factors only
when a scientific effort fails. Imre Lakatos and (in some moods) Thomas
Kuhn might be said to adhere to it.
2. appraise and differentiate the fundamental approaches to the study of the history of
science of Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper, and Robert K. Merton.
Karl Popper (1924-1994) — Argued that falsifiability is both the hallmark of
scientific theories and the proper methodology for scientists to employ. He believed
that scientists should always regard their theories with a skeptical eye, seeking every
opportunity to try to falsify them. Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) — Historian and
philosopher who argued that the picture of science developed by logical empiricists
such as Popper didn't resemble the history of science. Kuhn famously distinguished
between normal science, where scientists solve puzzles within a particular
framework or paradigm, and revolutionary science, when the paradigm gets
overturned. Robert K. Merton (1910–2003) gained renown as a distinguished
sociologist, especially in connection with the paradigm of “structural-functionalism”
and he publicly self-identified as a “structuralist.
1. identify and explain the basic parameters in the debate over the role of “the scholar” and
“the craftsman” in the scientific enterprise.
Perhap the most famous articulation of this is the scholar and craftsman debate, Historian of science have
tried to understand the relationship between those people primarily interested in the utility of knowledge(
the cratsmen) and those interested in the intellectual understanding of the world( the scholars0. Some
historians have denied the connection, but we feel it is integral to the pursuit of natural knowledge. The
geographers of the early modern period provide a good example of the necessity of this interconnection.
They brought te skills of the navigator together with the abstract knowledge of the mathematicians.
Translating the spherical earth onto flats maps was an intellectual challenge, while tramping to the four
corners of the globe to take measurements was an extreme physical challenge. Getting theory and practice
right could mean the difference between profit or loss, or even life and death.
1. analyze the concept embodied in the statement “from philosophy to utility.”
Science does not exist in disembodied minds, but is part of living, breathing society. It is
embedded in institutions such as schools, princely courts, government departments, and
even in the training of soldier. As much, we tried to relate scientific work to the society in
which it took place, tracing the interplay of social interest with personal interest. It sis from
the two perspectives of utility and social place that our subtitle comes. As we began to look
at the work of natural philosophers and scientist over more than 2000 years, we found
ourselves more and more struck by the consistency of the issue of the utility of knowledge.
How might a philosopher’s definition of science differ from that of a historian or a sociologist?
Science and philosophy have always learned from each other. Philosophy tirelessly draws from
scientific discoveries fresh strength, material for broad generalisations, while to the sciences it
imparts the world-view and methodological im pulses of its universal principles. Also
Philosophy of science is a sub-field of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and
implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the
reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science.
1. What is SSK and what are the implications of SSK and the “strong program” for the study
of the history of science? How does it differ from the “weak program”?
Document Summary
Unit #1: describe some of the problems associated with producing a definition of science. This latter issue the question of the social construction of science led to the science wars, a long, heated, and often bitter debate during the 1990s. On one side of the battle stood the postmodernists and their supporters from a range of disciplines who argued that there was no such thing as scientific objectivity or truth. The postmodernist school contended that science was essentially socially constructed and that it often served elitist ends or hidden agendas of one sort or another. On the other side of the battle were the realists, primarily scientists and their supporters, who held fast to the idea that science was objective. The ssk approach uses a relativistic analatical framework that stresses that failed or false scientific theories deserve as much attention as true or successful ones and that one must examine carefully the social context in which scientist work.
