Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Review symposia

  • Published:
Metascience Aims and scope

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Reference

  1. David Oldroyd,Thinking about the Earth: A History of Ideas in Geology. London: The Athlone Press, 1996. Pp. 410. £ 50 HB.

    Google Scholar 

Reference

  1. Barry Barnes, David Bloor and John Henry,Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis. London/Chicago: Athlone Press/The University of Chicago Press, 1996. Pp. xii + 230. £ 15.95 PB.

    Google Scholar 

References

  1. H.M. Collins,Changing Order:Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice.London: SAGE, 1985. Collins builds ultimately on Wittgenstein. The latter’s famous propositions about rules are another instance of a finitist viewpoint.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See for example the preoccupations of Steven Shapin,A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994, and the advanced epistemology of constraint offered in Andrew Pickering,The Mangle of Practice. Time, Agency and Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Steven Shapin, “History of Science and its Sociological Reconstructions”,History of Science, 20, 1982, 157–211. On the active mobilisation of conceptual resources from the sociology of science by historians in the years since Shapin’s important survey see Jan Golinski, “The Theory of Practice and the Practice of Theory: Sociological Approaches in the History of Science”,ISIS, 81, 1990, 492–505.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barry Barnes,T.S. Kuhn and Social Science. London: Macmillan, 1982 and David Bloor,Wittgenstein: A Social Theory of Knowledge. London: Macmillan, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Steven Shapin, “Following Scientists Around”,Social Studies of Science, 18, 1988, 533–50, at p. 544 and p. 549, n. 14. In similar vein see also Simon Schaffer, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Bruno Latour”,Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 22, 1991, 174–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Useful ways into this literature are: S.L. Star and J.R. Griesemer, “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’, and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39”,Social Studies of Science, 19, 1989, 387–420; Joan H. Fujimura, “Crafting Science: Standardized Packages, Boundary Objects, and ‘Translation’”, in Andrew Pickering (ed.),Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992, 168–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. See, for example, John Schuster and Graeme Watchirs, “Natural Philosophy, Experiment and Discourse in the 18th Century”, in Homer Le Grand (ed.),Experimental Inquiries: Historical, Philosophical, and Social Studies of Experimentation in Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990, 1–48. Also see John Schuster and Alan Taylor, “Blind Trust: The Gentlemanly Origins of Experimental Science”,Social Studies of Science (Forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  8. See Steve Woolgar, “Interests and Explanation in the Social Study of Science”,Social Studies of Science, 11, 1981, 365–94 and the response by Barnes inidem., 481–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. The work of Andy Pickering was certainly important here:Constructing Quarks. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Among many of Wynne’s writings might be mentioned recent work with Simon Shackley on climate science and policy, for example, Simon Shackley and Brian Wynne, “Global Climate Change: The Mutual Construction of an Emergent Science-policy Domain”,Science and Public Policy, 22, 1995, 218–30.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brian Wynne, “Representing Policy Constructions and Interests in SSK”,Social Studies of Science, 22, 1992, 575–80. Wynne was commenting on the following exchange: Daniel Lee Kleinman, “Conceptualizing the Politics of Science: A Response to Cambrosio, Limoges and Pronovost”,Social Studies of Science, 21, 1991, 769–74; Cambrosio, Limoges and Pronovost, “Analysing Science Policy-Making: Political Ontology or Ethnography?: A Reply to Kleinman”,ibid., 775–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. The concentration by BB&H on historical examples is even more odd given that Barnes & Edge,Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology of Science. Milton Keynes: The Open University Press, 1982, had precisely the sort of scope from which the current volume would have benefited.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Michel Callon, “Four Models for the Dynamics of Science”, in Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen and Trevor Pinch (eds),Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1996, 29–63.

    Google Scholar 

Reference

  1. Huw Price,Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Pp. xiv + 306. A$35 HB.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science Studies Program, University of California, San Diego, California, USA

    Martin Rudwick

  2. Gallatin School of Individualized Study, New York University, New York, USA

    Naomi Oreskes

  3. School of Science and Technology Studies, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    David Oldroyd, David Philip Miller & Peter Slezak

  4. Unit for History and Philosophy of Science, Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Alan Chalmers

  5. Faculty of Science and Technology, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia

    John Forge

  6. Social Studies of Science, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

    David Turnbull

  7. Science Studies Unit, Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, Scotland

    David Bloor

  8. Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, The London School of Economics, London, England

    Craig Callender

  9. History and Philosophy of Science, Melbourne University, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

    Keith Hutchison

  10. Department of Philosophy, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Steven Savitt

  11. School of Philosophy, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Huw Price

Authors
  1. Martin Rudwick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Naomi Oreskes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Oldroyd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Philip Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alan Chalmers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John Forge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David Turnbull
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Peter Slezak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. David Bloor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Craig Callender
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Keith Hutchison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Steven Savitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Huw Price
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The material in this review appeared originally as §5 of a survey article on the direction of time inBritish Journal for the Philosophy of Science (December, 1996). I am grateful to the editor of that journal and the editors of Oxford University Press for permission to reprint this material.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rudwick, M., Oreskes, N., Oldroyd, D. et al. Review symposia. Metascience 5, 7–85 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02988879

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02988879

Search

Navigation