In developing an “internal” sociology of science, the sociology of scientific knowledge drew on Wittgenstein’s later philosophy to reinterpret traditional epistemological topics in sociological terms. By construing scientific reasoning as rule following within a collective, sociologists David Bloor and Harry Collins effectively blocked outside criticism of a scientific field, whether scientific, philosophical, or political. Ethnomethodologist Michael Lynch developed an alternative, Wittgensteinian reading that similarly blocked philosophical or political critique, while also disallowing analytical appeals to historical or institutional contexts. I criticize these Wittgensteinian sociologies and argue for the historical and contemporary significance of methodological criticisms of scientific practice that conjoin epistemological and political categories. I consider two such cases briefly: the Baconian criticism of Scholastic science in the early Royal Society and the criticism of AIDS drug testing protocols by activists.
Barnes, Barry, David Bloor, and John Henry. 1996. Scientific knowledge: A sociological analysis. London: Athlone.
5.
Barthes, Roland. 1973. Mythologies. London: Jonathan Cape.
6.
Bloor, David. 1983. Wittgenstein: A social theory of knowledge. New York: Columbia University Press.
7.
Bloor, David. 1987. The living foundations of mathematics. Social Studies of Science17:337-358.
8.
Bloor, David. 1992. Left and right Wittgensteinians. In Science as practice and culture, edited by Andrew Pickering, 266-282. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
Boyd, Richard. 1992. Constructivism, realism, and philosophical method. In Inference, explanation, and other frustrations: Essays in the philosophy of science, edited by John Earman, 131-198. Berkeley: University of California Press.
10.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
11.
Callon, Michel, and Bruno Latour. 1981. Unscrewing the big Leviathan: How actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro- and macro-sociologies, edited by K. Knorr-Cetina and A. V. Cicourel, 277-303. Boston: Routledge Kegan Paul.
12.
Callon, Michel, and John Law. 1982. On interests and their transformation: Enrolment and counter-enrolment. Social Studies of Science12:615-626.
13.
Chomsky, Noam. 1989. Necessary illusions: Thought control in democratic societies. Boston: South End Press.
14.
Chubin, Daryl E.1982. Collins’s programme and the hardest possible case. Social Studies of Science12:136-139.
15.
Chubin, Daryl E., and Sal Restivo. 1983. The “mooting” of science studies: Research programmes and science policy. In Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science, edited by Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay, 55-83. London: Sage.
16.
Clarke, Adele E.1990. Asocial worlds research adventure: The case of reproductive science. In Theories of science in society, edited by S. E. Cozzens and T. F. Gieryn, 15-42. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
17.
Collins, H. M.1981. Stages in the empirical programme of relativism. Social Studies of Science11:3-10.
18.
Collins, H. M.1983. An empirical relativist programme in the sociology of scientific knowledge. In Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science, edited by Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay, 85-113. London: Sage.
19.
Collins, H. M.1985. Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.
20.
Collins, H. M.1988. Public experiments and displays of virtuosity: The core-set revisited. Social Studies of Science18:725-748.
21.
Collins, H. M.1990. Artificial experts: Social knowledge and intelligent machines. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
Collins, Harry. 1998. What’s wrong with relativism?Physics World (April). http://www.physicsweb.org/article/world/11/4/2.
23.
Collins, Harry, and Martin Kusch. 1998. The shape of actions: What humans and machines can do. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
Collins, Harry, and Trevor Pinch. 1998. The golem: What you should know about science. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Collins, Randall. 1975. Conflict sociology: Toward an explanatory science. New York: Academic Press.
26.
Connolly, William E.1991. Identity\difference: Democratic negotiations of political paradox. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
27.
Epstein, Steven. 1995. The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology, & Human Values20:408-437.
28.
Epstein, Steven. 1996. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of pure knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.
29.
Fine, Arthur. 1986a. The shaky game: Einstein, realism, and the quantum theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
Fine, Arthur. 1986b. Unnatural attitudes: Realist and instrumentalist attachments to science. Mind95:149-179.
31.
Fish, Stanley. 1989. Doing what comes naturally: Change, rhetoric, and the practice of theory in literary and legal studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
32.
Fish, Stanley. 1996. Professor Sokal’s bad joke. New York Times, 21 May 1996. http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/fish.html.
33.
Fujimura, Joan H.1992. Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects, and “translation.” In Science as practice and culture, edited by Andrew Pickering, 168-211. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
Fuller, Steve. 1988. Social epistemology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
35.
Fuller, Steve. 1993. Philosophy, rhetoric, and the end of knowledge: The coming of science and technology studies. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
36.
Fuss, Diana. 1989. Essentially speaking: Feminism, nature and difference. New York: Routledge.
Garver, Newton, and Seung-Chong Lee. 1994. Derrida and Wittgenstein. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
39.
Giddens, Anthony. 1993. New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretive sociologies. 2nd ed.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
40.
Gottweis, Herbert. 1995. German politics of genetic engineering and its deconstruction. Social Studies of Science25:195-235.
41.
Gross, Paul R., and Norman Levitt. 1994. Higher superstition: The academic Left and its quarrels with science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
42.
Hannaway, Owen. 1975. The chemists and the word: The didactic origins of chemistry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
43.
Haraway, Donna.1985.Amanifestofor cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. Socialist Review15:64-107.
44.
Haraway, Donna. 1990. Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. London: Free Association.
45.
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
46.
Harding, Sandra, ed. 1993. The “racial” economy of science: Toward a democratic future. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
47.
Harding, Sandra, and Jean F. O’Barr, eds. 1987. Sex and scientific inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48.
Hessen, B.1931. The social and economic roots of Newton’s Principia.In Science at the crossroads, edited by N. Bukharin. London: Kniga.
49.
Hunter, Michael. 1981. Science and society in Restoration England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
Jasanoff, Sheila S.1987. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science17:195-230.
51.
Jasanoff, Sheila, Gerald E. Markle, and James C. Petersen, eds. 1994. Handbook of science and technology studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52.
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1983. A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. San Francisco: Freeman.
53.
Keohane, Kieran. 1993. Central problems in the philosophy of the social sciences after postmodernism: Reconciling consensus and hegemonic theories of epistemology and political ethics. Philosophy & Social Criticism19:145-169.
54.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin D.1981. Introduction: The micro-sociological challenge of macro-sociology: Towards a reconstruction of social theory and methodology. In Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro- and macro-sociologies, edited by K. Knorr-Cetina and A.V. Cicourel, 1-47. Boston: Routledge Kegan Paul.
55.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin, and Michael Mulkay. 1983a. Introduction: Emerging principles in social studies of science. In Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science, edited by Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay, 1-17. London: Sage.
56.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin, and Michael Mulkay eds. 1983b. Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science. London: Sage.
57.
Koertge, Noretta, ed. 1998. A house built on sand: Exposing postmodernist myths about science. New York: Oxford University Press.
58.
Kripke, Saul. 1982. Wittgenstein on rules and private language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Laclau, Ernesto. 1990. New reflections on the revolution of our time. London: Verso.
61.
Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.
62.
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
63.
Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
64.
Livingston, Eric. 1986. The ethnomethodological foundations of mathematics. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
65.
Lynch, Michael. 1992a. Extending Wittgenstein: The pivotal move from epistemology to the sociology of science. In Science as practice and culture, edited by Andrew Pickering, 215-265. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
66.
Lynch, Michael. 1992b. From the “Will to Theory” to the discursive collage: A Reply to Bloor’s “Left and Right Wittgensteinians.” In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by Andrew Pickering, 283-300. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
67.
Lynch, Michael. 1992c. Going full circle in the sociology of knowledge: Comment on Lynch and Fuhrman. Science, Technology, & Human Values17:228-232.
68.
Lynch, Michael. 1993. Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
69.
Lynch, William T.2001. Solomon’s child: Method in the early Royal Society of London. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
70.
Lyotard, Jean-François.1988. The differend: Phrases in dispute. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
71.
Merton, Robert K.1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
72.
Michael, Mike, and Lynda Birke. 1994. Enrolling the core set: The case of the animal experimentation controversy. Social Studies of Science24:81-95.
73.
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1990. Who knows: From Quine to a feminist empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
74.
Nickles, Thomas. 1989. Justification and experiment. In The uses of experiment: Studies in the natural sciences, edited by D. Gooding, T. Pinch, and S. Schaffer, 299-333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
75.
Perry, John. 1991. The problem of the essential indexical. In Meaning and truth: Essential readings in modern semantics, edited by Jay L. Garfield and Murray Kiteley, 613-628. New York: Paragon House.
76.
Pinch, Trevor. 1985. Toward an analysis of scientific observation: The externality and evidential significance of observational reports in physics. Social Studies of Science15:3-36.
77.
Polanyi, Michael. 1957. Personal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
78.
Pratt, Mary Louise. 1987. Linguistic utopias. In The linguistics of writing, edited by Nigel Fabb, 48-66. New York: Methuen.
79.
Putnam, Hilary. 1975. The meaning of “Meaning.” In Hilary Putnam, Mind, language and reality: Philosophical papers, 2 vols., II:215-271. London: Cambridge University Press.
80.
Richards, Evelleen, and John Schuster. 1989. The feminine method as myth and accounting resource: A challenge to gender studies and social studies of science. Social Studies of Science19:697-720.
81.
Roberts, Lissa. 1991. Setting the table: The disciplinary development of eighteenth-century chemistry as read through the changing structure of its tables. In The literary structure of scientific argument: Historical studies, edited by Peter Dear, 99-132. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
82.
Rorty, Richard. 1989. Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
83.
Rose, Hilary, and Steven Rose, eds. 1976. The political economy of science: Ideology of/in the natural sciences. London: Macmillan.
84.
Ross, Andrew, ed. 1996. Science wars. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
85.
Rouse, Joseph. 1987. Knowledge and power: Toward a political philosophy of science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
86.
Schegloff, Emanuel A.1987. Between micro and macro: Contexts and other connections. In The micro-macro link, edited by Jeffrey C. Alexander, Bernhard Gieson, Richard Munch, and Neil J. Smelser, 207-234. Berkeley: University of California Press.
87.
Schuster, John A.1984. Methodologies as mythic structures: Apreface to the future historiography of method. Metascience1/2:15-36.
88.
Schuster, John A.1990. The scientific revolution. In Companion to the history of modern science, edited by R. C. Olby, G. N. Cantor, J. R. R. Christie, and M. J. S. Hodge. London: Routledge.
89.
Schuster, John A., and Richard Yeo, eds. 1986. The politics and rhetoric of scientific method: Historical studies. Dordrecht: Reidel.
90.
Sclove, Richard E.1995. Democracy and technology. New York: Guilford.
91.
Shapin, Steven, and Simon Schaffer. 1985. Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
92.
Webster, C.1976. The origins of the Royal Society. History of Science6:106-128.
93.
Webster, Charles. 1975. The great instauration: Science, medicine and reform, 1626-1660. London: Duckworth.
94.
Winch, Peter. 1958. The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. London: Routledge.
95.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1969. Philosophical investigations: The English text of the third edition, translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. New York: Macmillan.
96.
Wood, P. B.1980.Methodology and apologetics: Thomas Sprat’s history of the Royal Society. British Journal for the History of Science13:1-26.
97.
Woolgar, Steve. 1988. Science: The very idea. Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood.
98.
Zizek, Slavoj. 1989. The sublime object of ideology. London: Verso.
