Abstract
Calls for sociologists of knowledge to be committed to their subjects are examined critically. The idea of `commitment to commitment' is shown to be based either on fallacious reasoning or on a disguised call for commitment to the author's favoured causes. The `universal' and `local inevitability' arguments are analyzed and shown to be wrong. The former suggests that every scientific claim includes a commitment, willy-nilly; the latter says that analysts will be `captured', whether they like it or not. A particular case of the reception of a case study of a controversy is described; the reception of this case went against expectations, and some speculations are offered about the cause. Instances where the subject of a sociological study is also the object of study are looked at. Finally, good reasons for commitment are set out: one thing that the sociologist of science should engage in is `analytic critique of science', and this involves commitment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.