Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

It is difficult to judge the rationality of science policy debate because we are so much a part of it. However, a more detached understanding of the matter may be gained by imagining that a Martian anthropologist has come to earth to determine the real and imagined functions that science plays in our society. Four possible anthropological perspectives are surveyed, on the basis of which the Martian decides to proceed as Mr Spock would, namely, to judge the understanding of science implicit in science policy debate against the standards of rationality to which science itself aspires. This strategy leads the Martian to classify science policy arguments in terms of six categories of religious thought, which together present a picture of science policy as largely superstitious.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Harding

: ‘Whose science? Whose knowledge?; 1991, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press.

Latour

and Woolgar

: ‘Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts’; 1979, London, Sage.

Popper

: ‘Objective knowledge’; 1972, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Fuller

: ‘Social epistemology’; 1988, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press.

Wittgenstein

: ‘Philosophical investigations’; 1952, Oxford, Blackwell.

Festinger

: ‘A theory of cognitive dissonance’; 1957, Palo Alto, CA, Stanford University Press.

Malinowski

: ‘Magic, science and religion’; 1954, Garden City, NY, Doubleday.

Hollis

and Lukes

(ed.): ‘Rationality and relativism’; 1982, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

Weber

: ‘The sociology of religion’; 1965, Boston, MA, Beacon Press.

10.

Katz

R. L.

: ‘Measurement and cross-national comparisons of the information work force’; Inf. Soc., 1986, 4, 231–278.

11.

Drucker

: ‘Post-capitalist society’; 1993, New York, NY, HarperCollins.

12.

Fukuyama

: ‘The end of history and the last man’; 1992, New York, NY, Free Press.

13.

Cohen

H. F.

: ‘The scientific revolution: an historiographical inquiry’; 1994, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.

14.

Ralston

: ‘Importing the European army: the introduction of European military techniques and institutions into the extra-European world, 1600–1914’; 1990, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.

15.

Fuller

: ‘Does science put an end to history, or history to science?’, Soc. Text, 1996, 46/47, 27–42.

16.

Ben-David

and Collins

: ‘Social factors in the origin of a new science: the case of psychology’, Am. Sociol. Rev., 1966, 31, 451–465.

17.

Frank

R. H.

: ‘Are workers paid their marginal products?’, Am. Econ. Rev., 1984, 74, 541–579.

18.

Turner

and Chubin

: ‘Another appraisal of Ortega, the Coles and science policy: the Ecclesiastes hypothesis’, Soc. Sci. Inf., 1976, 15, 657–662.

19.

Merton

R. K.

: ‘The sociology of science’; 1973, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.

20.

Reingold

: ‘Science and government in the United States since 1945’, Hist. Sci., 32, 1994, 361–386.

21.

Inkster

: ‘Science and technology in history: an approach to industrial development’; 1991, London, Macmillan.

Is science policy superstitious? The view from Mars

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References