THEORY DOPES: A CRITIQUE OF MURPHY

From the beginning, those who practiced the sociology and history of scientific knowledge (SSK) knew that to "sociologize" the hard sciences was to invite a harsh response. To some extent, then, criticism from fellow social scientists is welcome because it is better to have one's mistakes first discussed within a community of professional colleagues than exposed by those occasional bitter critics from the natural sciences who may be more cavalier when it comes to matters of scholarship. Given this, it is disappointing to turn to Robert Murphy's (1994) critique of SSK. There are 4 reasons: 1. The criticism does not discuss the well-known case studies that form the core of the subject. 2. It treats sociologists of scientific knowledge as "theory dopes." 3. It fails to acknowledge the considerable body of SSK work concerning the environment - work which, according to the critique, ought not to exist. 4. The piece is based on the tired tu quoque argument and the scholarship leaves much to be desired.