The Epistemological Meaning Of Research Turn Of Sociology Of Scientific Knowledge

After the historical turn of philosophy of science triggered by Thomas Kuhn, the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge with the core of "strong programme" in 1970s leads the sociological turn of philosophy of science and be the mainstream in the field of meta-science over thirty years .Before 1970s, the notion in the main study on sociology of science and philosophy of science about nature of science is consistent, without dispute. On the side of philosophy of science, study focuses on the epistemological and methodological rules of the scientific rationality. On the side of the sociology of science, Mertonia sociology of science focuses on the scientists' groups, and the social mechanics that support science to run smoothly. Both of them take the scientific rationality, truth, and reality for granted, which show nature realism of nature priority in epistemology. From the beginning of 1970s to the middle of 1980s, the social study of science replaces philosophy of science as the mainstream in the meta-science field. Sociology of Scientific Knowledge with the core of "strong programme" assert sociological study in the scientific content, adopt epistemological relativism to topple nature realism of philosophy of science with society realism.Explanation mode constructed by Edinburgh School by only social interest is criticized by interior and exterior of SSK. Then there arose a response in SSK, that is a turn from macro-mode to micro-mode. The key point of this turn is from focusing on science as knowledge to science as practice. This turn inherits the construction trend, but it is from focusing on scientific theory to science practice. In the process of this turn, Latour of France, Knorr-Cetina of German and Lynch and Pickering of America all make contribution. laboratory studies become the most important turning point. The dissertation asserts there is a new epistemological meaning after the practice-turn, that is cultural construction of science which will surpass early social construction of science of SSK, and rescue SSK. The dissertation includes seven chapters. Chapterl displays the background of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge, as a base of the latter chapters.Chapter 2 sets forth epistemological meaning of the Edinburgh School from critical angle and points out that the social construction of the Edinburgh School moves towards society realism while disintegrating nature realism . The drawback of extreme society realism arouse the practice-turn of SSK's research approach. This new research approach focuses on the real process of science activity.Chapter 3 displays the theory background of the practice-turn and indicates the epistemological meaning of the practice-turn, which is cultural construction of science beyond social construction of science . The laboratory studies by Latour , Knorr-Cetina, Lynch , Pickering and Hacking show the turning to cultural construction of scienceChapter 4 discusses mainly heterogeneous constructivism of science by Latour and its meaning. Through the anthropology investigating of laboratory and science in making ,Latour tries to chang the old view of science . Latour argues that the core of scientific knowledge production is constructing actor-network .This actor-network is formed by heterogeneous actors acting each other. Scientific Knowledge is not representation of objective reality but outcome of practice activity of constructingreality—Nature reality and Society reality .Knowledge can not be reducedto Nature(as nature realism)but also to Society (as society realism) either; Nature and Society are both be continually reconstructed in process of knowledge. This chapter argues that Latour's ANT is beyond nature realism of philosophy of science and society realism of sociology of knowledge . Latour thinks that Knowledge is a kind of power shaping world. This view shows that Latour's stand is from social construction of knowledge to mutual construction of nature-science-society.Chapter 5 sets forth the contextual construction of science and its meaning. Laboratory study of Knorr-Cetina shows the character of contextual contingency and uncertainty in scientific knowledge production. Scientists' choice of decision standard is changing with study context. Affected by Phenomenology , Knorr-Cetina argues that Contextual knowledge is local knowledge, which is constructed by scientists using knowledge-storage at hands. This chapter thinks that Knorr-Cetina opens the door for cultural relativism in evaluating scientific rationality through the notion of local knowledge and life world. The view of local knowledge challenges traditional universalism(based on nature realism) of philosophy of science and goes beyond the view of rule-followed(based on society realism) of sociology of knowledge.Chapter 6 discusses implication of performative idiom description of science practice of Pickering. Pickering argues that SSK adopt representional idiom description of science of traditional philosophy of science and neglect performative idiom description of science. As a result, The symmetry of human strength (representing society realism) and material strength(representing nature realism) in explaining the forming of scientific knowledge is damaged. The former is overstated extremely and replaced the latter. In fact, these two kinds of strength are in mangle in science practice. This chapter argues that Pickering's study is same as Latour and solving "the puzzle of representation" in representional idiom description of science only through performative idiom description of science and dissolving the antinomy of "realism and anti-realism".At last, Chapter 7 summarizes and analyses further the practice-turn of SSK and its epistemological meaning. This chapter argues that laboratory study focusing on science practice leads to cultural construction of science. Cultural construction of science not only opens a new field of social study of science but also challenges the view of science of philosophy of science and sociology of knowledge. The essence of the practice-turn of SSK is that study of dynamical process replace one of static product, mutual construction of nature-science-society replace single-dimension social construction of scientific knowledge, explaining science in action replace explaining observed science, performative idiom description of science replace the representional idiom description of science .in order to exhibit effectively that the sciencal practice is heterogeneity, intersubjectivity and contextual character. In sum, the epistemology of practice-dominated is holism epistemology.The epistemological meaning of the practical science is that science is epistemological- alignment and narrative reconstruction.