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 mist...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Sociology (Oxford) 1996-05, Vol.30 (2), p.367-373 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 373 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 367 |
| container_title | Sociology (Oxford) |
| container_volume | 30 |
| creator | Collins, H. M. |
| description | 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0038038596030002010 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_839029357</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A18585449</galeid><jstor_id>42855687</jstor_id><sage_id>10.1177_0038038596030002010</sage_id><sourcerecordid>A18585449</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c635t-df3664ec90936e77df76e140f3f8cd0874925c61f9aac5375a40b415d4b134f53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0k1rGzEQBmARUqiT9heUwJKU9tJtRjv67M24Tm1IceLYh5wWRSuZNevdVLIP_feVuyGU4qZIIBDPvGjEEPKOwmdKpbwEQJU21wIQAAqgcEQGlAmdK6HYMRnsRb4nr8lJjOuEQCk-IOeLyXg2v8--zm7Gd1-yYTaaTxfT2-U4m11l35fzm8n9G_LKmya6t0_nKVlejRejSX49-zYdDa9zK5Bv88qjEMxZDRqFk7LyUjjKwKNXtgIlmS64FdRrYyxHyQ2DB0Z5xR4oMs_xlHzscx9D92Pn4rbc1NG6pjGt63axVKih0Mhlkh9elIIy1BrxvzBlIaQfSvD8L7judqFN7ZYFFVAIKXVCF_9CVHKQWrDfUZ96tTKNK-vWd9tg7Mq1Lpima52v0_WQKq44Y_vQ_ABPq3Kb2h7y2HsbuhiD8-VjqDcm_CwplPthKA8MQ6p6__R0E61pfDCtreNzKRaSUyUSg55Fs3J_dPdi8llfso7bLjwnskJxLpTEX71cwbk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1750796468</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>THEORY DOPES: A CRITIQUE OF MURPHY</title><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>SAGE Journals Online</source><creator>Collins, H. M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Collins, H. M.</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0038-0385</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-8684</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0038038596030002010</identifier><identifier>CODEN: SLGYA5</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: British Sociological Association Publications Limited</publisher><subject>Anthropocentrism ; Case studies ; COMMENTS ; Criticism ; Critics ; Environmental impact ; Environmental sociology ; Handbooks ; History ; History of sociology ; Knowledge ; Literature ; Mathematical knowledge ; Methodology (Philosophical) ; Methods ; Murphy, Robert ; Observational research ; Physics ; Robert Murphy ; Science ; Science education ; Scientific belief ; Scientific Knowledge ; Scientists ; Social aspects ; Social construction ; Social constructivism ; Social research ; Social sciences ; Social theories ; Sociology ; Sociology of knowledge and ethics ; Sociology of knowledge and sociology of culture ; Sociology of Science ; Theoretical Problems</subject><ispartof>Sociology (Oxford), 1996-05, Vol.30 (2), p.367-373</ispartof><rights>1996 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 1996 Sage Publications Ltd. (UK)</rights><rights>Copyright British Sociological Association Publications Ltd. May 1996</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c635t-df3664ec90936e77df76e140f3f8cd0874925c61f9aac5375a40b415d4b134f53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c635t-df3664ec90936e77df76e140f3f8cd0874925c61f9aac5375a40b415d4b134f53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/42855687$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/42855687$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,21799,27848,27903,27904,30979,33753,33754,43600,43601,57996,58229</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=3275186$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Collins, H. M.</creatorcontrib><title>THEORY DOPES: A CRITIQUE OF MURPHY</title><title>Sociology (Oxford)</title><description>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.</description><subject>Anthropocentrism</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>COMMENTS</subject><subject>Criticism</subject><subject>Critics</subject><subject>Environmental impact</subject><subject>Environmental sociology</subject><subject>Handbooks</subject><subject>History</subject><subject>History of sociology</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Literature</subject><subject>Mathematical knowledge</subject><subject>Methodology (Philosophical)</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Murphy, Robert</subject><subject>Observational research</subject><subject>Physics</subject><subject>Robert Murphy</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Science education</subject><subject>Scientific belief</subject><subject>Scientific Knowledge</subject><subject>Scientists</subject><subject>Social aspects</subject><subject>Social construction</subject><subject>Social constructivism</subject><subject>Social research</subject><subject>Social sciences</subject><subject>Social theories</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><subject>Sociology of knowledge and ethics</subject><subject>Sociology of knowledge and sociology of culture</subject><subject>Sociology of Science</subject><subject>Theoretical Problems</subject><issn>0038-0385</issn><issn>1469-8684</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0k1rGzEQBmARUqiT9heUwJKU9tJtRjv67M24Tm1IceLYh5wWRSuZNevdVLIP_feVuyGU4qZIIBDPvGjEEPKOwmdKpbwEQJU21wIQAAqgcEQGlAmdK6HYMRnsRb4nr8lJjOuEQCk-IOeLyXg2v8--zm7Gd1-yYTaaTxfT2-U4m11l35fzm8n9G_LKmya6t0_nKVlejRejSX49-zYdDa9zK5Bv88qjEMxZDRqFk7LyUjjKwKNXtgIlmS64FdRrYyxHyQ2DB0Z5xR4oMs_xlHzscx9D92Pn4rbc1NG6pjGt63axVKih0Mhlkh9elIIy1BrxvzBlIaQfSvD8L7judqFN7ZYFFVAIKXVCF_9CVHKQWrDfUZ96tTKNK-vWd9tg7Mq1Lpima52v0_WQKq44Y_vQ_ABPq3Kb2h7y2HsbuhiD8-VjqDcm_CwplPthKA8MQ6p6__R0E61pfDCtreNzKRaSUyUSg55Fs3J_dPdi8llfso7bLjwnskJxLpTEX71cwbk</recordid><startdate>19960501</startdate><enddate>19960501</enddate><creator>Collins, H. M.</creator><general>British Sociological Association Publications Limited</general><general>Sage</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd. (UK)</general><general>Clarendon Press</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>HDMVH</scope><scope>IOIBA</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7QJ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19960501</creationdate><title>THEORY DOPES: A CRITIQUE OF MURPHY</title><author>Collins, H. M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c635t-df3664ec90936e77df76e140f3f8cd0874925c61f9aac5375a40b415d4b134f53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><topic>Anthropocentrism</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>COMMENTS</topic><topic>Criticism</topic><topic>Critics</topic><topic>Environmental impact</topic><topic>Environmental sociology</topic><topic>Handbooks</topic><topic>History</topic><topic>History of sociology</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Literature</topic><topic>Mathematical knowledge</topic><topic>Methodology (Philosophical)</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Murphy, Robert</topic><topic>Observational research</topic><topic>Physics</topic><topic>Robert Murphy</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Science education</topic><topic>Scientific belief</topic><topic>Scientific Knowledge</topic><topic>Scientists</topic><topic>Social aspects</topic><topic>Social construction</topic><topic>Social constructivism</topic><topic>Social research</topic><topic>Social sciences</topic><topic>Social theories</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>Sociology of knowledge and ethics</topic><topic>Sociology of knowledge and sociology of culture</topic><topic>Sociology of Science</topic><topic>Theoretical Problems</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Collins, H. M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 15</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 29</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><jtitle>Sociology (Oxford)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Collins, H. M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>THEORY DOPES: A CRITIQUE OF MURPHY</atitle><jtitle>Sociology (Oxford)</jtitle><date>1996-05-01</date><risdate>1996</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>367</spage><epage>373</epage><pages>367-373</pages><issn>0038-0385</issn><eissn>1469-8684</eissn><coden>SLGYA5</coden><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>British Sociological Association Publications Limited</pub><doi>10.1177/0038038596030002010</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0038-0385 |
| ispartof | Sociology (Oxford), 1996-05, Vol.30 (2), p.367-373 |
| issn | 0038-0385 1469-8684 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_839029357 |
| source | Sociological Abstracts; Periodicals Index Online; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Jstor Complete Legacy; SAGE Journals Online |
| subjects | Anthropocentrism Case studies COMMENTS Criticism Critics Environmental impact Environmental sociology Handbooks History History of sociology Knowledge Literature Mathematical knowledge Methodology (Philosophical) Methods Murphy, Robert Observational research Physics Robert Murphy Science Science education Scientific belief Scientific Knowledge Scientists Social aspects Social construction Social constructivism Social research Social sciences Social theories Sociology Sociology of knowledge and ethics Sociology of knowledge and sociology of culture Sociology of Science Theoretical Problems |
| title | THEORY DOPES: A CRITIQUE OF MURPHY |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T19%3A53%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=THEORY%20DOPES:%20A%20CRITIQUE%20OF%20MURPHY&rft.jtitle=Sociology%20(Oxford)&rft.au=Collins,%20H.%20M.&rft.date=1996-05-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=367&rft.epage=373&rft.pages=367-373&rft.issn=0038-0385&rft.eissn=1469-8684&rft.coden=SLGYA5&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0038038596030002010&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA18585449%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1750796468&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A18585449&rft_jstor_id=42855687&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0038038596030002010&rfr_iscdi=true |