EXAM CARDS Flashcards
- What is meant when we speak about the co-production of (techno)science and society? What does the notion “co-production” (Jasanoff) stand for?
The concept of “co-production” (as defined by Sheila Jasanoff) refers to the idea that science, technology, and society are deeply intertwined and mutually shape one another.
our knowledge systems (such as science and technology) and our social practices (such as institutions, identities, and discourses) are co-produced. This means that scientific and technological developments are not just neutral facts; they are shaped by societal values, power structures, and cultural norms, and in turn, these developments influence how we live and understand the world.
Jasanoff specifically points to four areas where co-production can be observed:
- Making identities – How social identities are shaped by technological and scientific ideas.
- Making institutions – The creation and transformation of social institutions influenced by scientific and technological knowledge.
- Making discourses – How the narratives and language we use to discuss the world are shaped by science and technology.
- Making representations – How we represent the world through both scientific and societal lenses, which in turn shapes policy and practice.
Explain the meaning of critique for STS. What is the relation between de-constructing and re-constructing in critical work in STS?
In STS , critique means questioning the assumptions and ways of thinking behind BLAX BOXES, accepted practices.
It’s not about saying things are “wrong,” but about showing that things are more complicated than they seem.
Critique challenges oversimplified views and asks us to think more deeply about how science, technology, and society are connected.
Deconstruction means breaking down ideas or systems to see what’s hidden or taken for granted. It helps us understand what assumptions are being made and who might benefit or be harmed.
The main aim of critique is to reconstruct our understanding. This means using knowledge from STS to look at the world in a new way, considering different options, and understanding the values behind the problems and solutions we identify.
In STS, we believe that things could always have been different. When we define problems, we also frame the solutions, which are shaped by different values and perspectives.
Deconstruction: Self-driving cars are said to fix traffic and safety, but STS questions this, pointing out hidden issues like job loss and ethical dilemmas in AI.
Reconstruction: After critique, STS suggests alternatives— building walkable cities instead of focusing on cars.
How does STS problematize the distinction of nature and culture?
- In the modernist view, humans and culture are on one side, and nature and non-humans are on the other. STS argues that this division is too simplistic. challenges the idea that nature and culture are separate.
- Instead, STS focuses on hybrid networks, where humans, animals, technologies, and other non-human entities are interconnected. These networks shape the “things” and “challenges” we encounter, and the relationships between all entities are important.
- STS also sees agency differently. It argues that non-humans—like technologies or animals—can influence and shape the world just like humans do. For example, non-humans can “allow, suggest, encourage, or block” actions, which makes them active participants in networks.
- By focusing on these hybrids, STS helps us better understand the complex ways humans and non-humans interact and shape each other.
What is the problem with the notion of “discovery” in research? Briefly reflect the meaning of the term and point at s ome of its problems.
The term “discovery” suggests finding something that exists independently and unchanged, but STS problematizes this idea.
Discovery is not just about finding something;
it’s about making knowledge visible while ignoring other possibilities. For example, Columbus “discovered” America, but it already existed and was home to indigenous peoples.
Problems with the notion of discovery:
- Context matters: What we discover depends on what we already know. Newton studied gravity, but he could have focused on something else, like how trees grow.
- Ignores teamwork: Discovery stories often focus on one “genius” (like Newton) and ignore the messy, collaborative work behind it.
- Being first: The idea of “who discovered it first” creates hype and overshadows other contributions.
- Hides alternatives: Highlighting one discovery makes other possibilities invisible.
Key idea: Discovery is not just finding something; it is shaped by context, culture, and the existing state of knowledge.
Does objectivity have a history? Explain Daston’s and Galison’s perspective on this question and give an example how the meaning of the term has changed historically.
Daston and Galison showed that what counts as a “good” scientific observation has changed over time. They identified three phases in the history of objectivity:
Phase 1: Truth-to-Nature (Before 1830):
* Scientists aimed to find the “ideal type,” like the perfect plant, rather than just any example.
* To discover a metaphysical „ideal type“
* Unveil the true plan of god – scientists as geniuses with no biases
* This phase saw nature as imperfect, and scientists were seen as geniuses revealing a higher truth, often tied to religious beliefs. To depict something more perfect than nature can ever be;
* Science was more of an aristocratic pursuit.
· Phase 2: Mechanical Objectivity (1830–20th Century)
* The focus shifted to showing nature as it is, using tools like photography: gold standard of method;
* Scientists were expected to “let nature speak for itself” and avoid adding personal interpretation.
* Science became a professional activity, but its authority in society was still growing.
· Phase 3: „Judgement“
* Scientists recognized that observation requires interpretation and skill.
* Pictures were no longer seen as objective on their own but needed to be explained to others.
* Science gained confidence and societal importance during this period.
* A picture can hence only be a good representation for someone who knows how to see, or who is told what to see;
* EXPERTISE
Example: In the truth-to-nature phase, a botanist might draw an “ideal” plant, combining features from multiple specimens to show what the plant should look like. In the objectivity phase, a photograph of an actual plant was preferred, with no alterations. In the judgment phase, interpreting what the photograph shows became crucial, requiring expertise.
Use the example of Schiebinger’s history of the female skeleton to argue how gender orders matter in the production of scientific knowledge.
Schiebinger’s history of the female skeleton shows how gender orders influence scientific knowledge.
In the 18th century, scientists compared the female skeleton to that of an ostrich, emphasizing traits like a broad pelvis and a small head.
They claimed this was “nature’s law,” using science to justify societal ideas about gender roles.
This example shows how society’s values shape science.
Instead of objectively studying skeletons, scientists strenghtened existing beliefs about women being suited for childbearing and less intelligent than men.
It also highlights how these “scientific” ideas then influenced society, making such gender orders seem natural and unchangeable.
Key point: Gender orders matter because they shape what scientists see and how they interpret it, embedding social biases into scientific knowledge.
How does Ludwik Fleck understand the emergence of “scientific facts”? Give a short description of his approach to conceptualizing knowledge production.
Fleck argued that scientific facts don’t just emerge on their own—they are created through social processes.
Knowledge depends on the scientific and societal context of its time and requires a community to develop and recognize it.
Fleck described two key groups in this process:
1. Esoteric circle (inner circle): Professionals and experts who actively develop new ideas within their “thought style.” To join this group, one must learn and become an expert.
2. Exoteric circle (outer circle): Laypeople who are influenced by the ideas of the esoteric circle but don’t actively shape them at first.
These two circles are in constant exchange, spreading and shaping knowledge. Fleck also showed that this process happens differently across cultures and disciplines, emphasizing that knowledge production is always social and situated.
Explain the concepts “thought style“, “thought collective” and „proto-idea“ by Ludwik Fleck.
Fleck introduced the concepts of thought style and thought collective to explain how knowledge is produced and shared.
- Thought Style:
o A particular way of seeing, thinking, and acting that is shared by a group.
o It’s how they see the world and understand things.
o Thought styles aren’t just for science; for example, political parties have their own thought styles on how society should be run - they exist in all areas of society.
o They are learned through interaction with others in a group. - Thought Collective:
o A thought collective is a group of people who share the same thought style and exchange ideas. They work together and influence each other’s thinking.
o Thought collectives include scientific groups, political parties, or even entire societies.
o People can belong to more than one thought collective.
o Example: A scientific community, like physicists or biologists, is a thought collective. They all share the same way of thinking about the world, and they discuss and build on each other’s ideas. People in the same political party also form a thought collective because they share similar beliefs and values. - Proto-Ideas:
o Creativity and innovation start with proto-ideas—early, incomplete ideas based on existing social knowledge.
o Proto-ideas are early ideas that people have, which are not fully developed but are shared with others to improve or change.
o When shared, proto-ideas are developed further by others, who adapt and change them according to their own thought styles.
o Each person interprets the proto-idea slightly differently, so no one fully understands it in the exact same way.
o Example: Think of a student who has a rough idea for a new phone app but doesn’t know how to fully build it. When they share this idea with friends, those friends help to improve it and make it more detailed. The original idea changes as more people work on it. Each person adds their own perspective, so the idea bec
Key point: Fleck shows that knowledge is always shaped by collective ways of thinking and depends on social interaction to grow and evolve.
What does Thomas Kuhn’s notion of “paradigm” mean? Define it and sketch what “following a paradigm” means in science.
What is a “paradigm”?
* A paradigm is a shared set of assumptions, practices, and methods that guide how a specific scientific community works and understands the world at a particular time.
* It includes the values, theories, techniques, and questions scientists agree upon when doing research.
* Paradigms are specific to particular scientific communities and change over time.
Example:
* In physics, the paradigm of Newtonian mechanics once dominated how people thought about motion and gravity. Later, the paradigm of Einstein’s theory of relativity replaced it.
- What does “following a paradigm” mean in science?
o Following a paradigm means working within the established methods, theories, and questions of a particular scientific community. Scientists work like “puzzle solvers”—they try to find answers to questions and solve problems according to the rules and assumptions of the paradigm.
o The work done in “normal science” is focused on refining, extending, and applying the existing paradigm, often through routine steps. New discoveries should fit within the current paradigm, and any findings must seem plausible within the existing framework.
Example:
o A biologist working within the paradigm of evolutionary theory studies the diversity of life using existing methods, assuming natural selection is the driving force. They solve puzzles within this framework, like studying how specific traits help organisms survive, but they aren’t questioning the basic principles of evolution itself.
3. Plausibility:
o For something to be accepted in science, it needs to fit the “plausibility” of the current paradigm. This means ideas that align with the dominant theory or method are more likely to be accepted, even if they can’t be fully proven at the moment.
o Example: A physicist may have an intuition about a theory or experiment working, even without knowing exactly why, because it fits with the current understanding.
4. Anomalies and Paradigm Shifts:
o Sometimes, observations or discoveries don’t fit with the existing paradigm. These are called anomalies. If enough anomalies build up, they can challenge the current paradigm, leading to a paradigm shift—a major change in how scientists understand the world.
5. Incommensurability:
o When two paradigms are very different, they may not be directly comparable. The language, methods, and ways of seeing the world may be so different that scientists from one paradigm can’t fully understand or communicate with those from another.
_____________________________________
In summary:
* A paradigm is a shared way of doing science within a community.
* Following a paradigm means solving problems within the existing framework of accepted methods and ideas.
* Anomalies may challenge the paradigm, eventually leading to a shift in scientific understanding.
Describe briefly the different stages in Kuhn’s model of scientific development. Sketch each of the stages.
Pre-science (Pre-paradigmatic phase):
* What it is: Before a scientific community agrees on a single approach, there are many competing ideas and theories. No shared understanding exists.
* Stage description: Different groups or scientists might follow different paradigms or frameworks for understanding the same phenomena. There is no common set of methods or theories.
- Normal Science (Post-paradigm agreement):
* What it is: Once a dominant paradigm is accepted by the scientific community, scientists begin working within it. They “solve puzzles” and work to expand knowledge within the accepted framework.
* Stage description: Scientists focus on refining the paradigm, solving specific problems (“puzzles”), and accumulating knowledge. The paradigm is unquestioned and becomes the foundation for future research. - Anomalies and Crisis:
* What it is: Over time, certain observations or problems (anomalies) don’t fit within the established paradigm. These anomalies grow and create a crisis, where the current paradigm no longer seems sufficient.
* Stage description: Scientists begin to notice that certain phenomena cannot be explained by the current paradigm, leading to frustration and a sense of crisis. The paradigm is now questioned. - Revolution and Emergence of a New Paradigm:
* What it is: When the crisis becomes too great, a new paradigm can emerge, offering a different way to understand the phenomena. This marks a revolution in science.
* Stage description: A new theory or framework replaces the old one. The scientific community must shift their thinking to accept the new paradigm. This leads to a “paradigm shift.”
* Example: Einstein’s theory of relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics for explaining gravitational phenomena, revolutionizing physics. - Normalization (Back to Normal Science):
* What it is: After the paradigm shift, the new paradigm becomes the dominant framework. Scientists return to “normal science,” solving new puzzles within the new paradigm.
* Stage description: The new paradigm is now fully accepted, and research resumes within this new framework, just like it did with the old paradigm.
The cycle starts again with new “puzzles” to solve.
1. Pre-science (Pre-paradigmatic phase): Many competing ideas.
2. Normal Science: A single dominant paradigm solves puzzles.
3. Anomalies and Crisis: Problems arise that can’t be solved within the current paradigm.
4. Revolution: A new paradigm emerges.
5. Normal Science (again): The new paradigm is accepted, and normal science resumes.
Discuss some main similarities and differences of Thomas Kuhn’s and Ludwik Fleck’s theories of the development of scientific knowledge
SIMILARITIES:
1. Knowledge is Socially Constructed:
o Both Kuhn and Fleck agree that scientific knowledge is shaped by the social context rather than being a purely objective discovery of facts.
o Kuhn: Knowledge is produced within scientific communities that share paradigms. These paradigms define what counts as valid knowledge.
o Fleck: Knowledge is created within “thought collectives,” which include both scientists and non-scientists. These collectives influence how people think and what they consider true.
2. Group Effort in Science:
o Both emphasize that science is a collective activity.
o Kuhn: Scientific communities work together to maintain and advance the current paradigm.
o Fleck: Thought collectives, which may include different types of people, shape the understanding and production of knowledge.
_____________________________________
DIFFERENCES:
1. Frameworks for Knowledge (Paradigms vs. Thought Styles):
o Kuhn: A paradigm is a specific framework shared by a scientific community. It includes common assumptions, methods, and practices. Paradigms are unique to science and guide “normal science,” which is the routine work scientists do within the paradigm.
o Fleck: A thought style is broader than a paradigm. It refers to shared ways of thinking that can exist in both scientific and non-scientific groups. Thought styles are not exclusive to scientists but are influenced by society as a whole.
2. Multiplicity of Frameworks:
o Kuhn: Scientific communities typically follow one paradigm at a time. When a paradigm cannot solve major problems (anomalies), a “paradigm shift” occurs, and the old paradigm is replaced with a new one. During normal science, multiple paradigms cannot coexist.
o Fleck: People can belong to multiple thought collectives at the same time. For example, a scientist might also be part of a political or religious group, and these influences can shape their scientific work. Different thought styles can coexist within individuals or societies.
3. Connection Between Science and Society:
o Kuhn: Science is mainly shaped by the scientific community itself, which works within its paradigm. Broader society has little influence on the methods and practices of science.
o Fleck: Scientific thinking is deeply connected to society. Scientists are part of larger thought collectives that include non-scientists, and cultural and societal contexts strongly influence the production of scientific knowledge.
What do we mean in STS when we speak of science as practice and culture? What do these two notions refer to and why is it important to study science from this perspective?
Science as Culture:
* Meaning: Science is a system of shared meanings, rituals, and practices. It’s shaped by culture and cannot be separated from social contexts.
* Science is shaped by culture. Scientists bring their social, cultural, and historical backgrounds into their work, and different scientific fields or communities have their own ways of thinking and working (called “epistemic cultures” by Knorr-Cetina).
* Stöckelova highlights that scientific practices are local and influenced by the specific environments where they happen. For example, the way science is done in one country may differ from another.
* Why Important: It helps us understand how knowledge is constructed and communicated, emphasizing the diversity within scientific communities.
* Seeing science as part of culture helps us understand its diversity and how knowledge is shaped by societal values and global influences.
- Science as Practice:
- Science is not just about discovering facts; it’s about making facts through activities like experiments, data collection, and interpretation.
- Latour explains that science often appears neat and objective, but behind the scenes, it involves messy processes, debates, and uncertainties.
- For example: Lab work, using tools and methods, collaboration among scientists, and sharing results through peer review are all parts of scientific practice.
- Why it’s important: Studying science as practice helps us see how knowledge is created in specific contexts, with both human (scientists) and non-human (tools, instruments) elements playing a role.
Describe the role of the experiment as a new way of producing knowledge in early modern science.
- In the early 17th century, experiments became the central method of producing knowledge. Before this, scholars mostly preserved and interpreted ancient texts.
- New Approach: Scientists began using experiments to observe and test directly, moving away from relying only on theory or ancient knowledge.
- Collaboration: Experiments brought together:
Artists (who wanted to represent),
Craftsmen (who had practical skills), and
Scholars (who provided theories). - Key Figure – Robert Boyle: he was a key figure in developing this scientific method.
- Boyle developed the experimental method and stressed that experiments should be reproducible.
- Witnessing and Consensus:
- Experiments were public demonstrations.
- Witnesses—usually intellectuals—saw the results and confirmed them.
- Their agreement turned observations into “facts” accepted by the scientific community.
- Production of Facts:
The production of “facts” occurred through (private) trials, public experiment, discourse, then reaching a consensus among the “free” gentleman who could be “objective” about knowledge. Testimony of those who watched the experiment served as the main form of knowledge dissemination.This process reinforced the idea of objectivity in science.
Explain why in an STS perspective “crucial experiments” alone cannot settle controversies in science.
In STS, “crucial experiments” cannot fully settle scientific controversies because:
1. Observation Depends on Theory: What scientists choose to observe and how they interpret results is shaped by the theories they already have. This means experiments aren’t purely objective; they’re influenced by prior ideas.
2. Experimenter’s Regress: We decide if an experiment is good based on the theory it supports, but we also use experiments to judge theories. This creates a loop where neither can fully prove the other.
3. Tacit Knowledge: Conducting and replicating experiments requires skills and knowledge that are hard to explain or write down, like knowing how to use equipment correctly. This can affect how results are produced and understood.
- Ongoing Controversy: Even big, important experiments often lead to disagreement. Different scientists might see the same results but interpret them differently.
- Social Process of Closure: Controversies in science aren’t solved by experiments alone. Scientists and others must discuss, negotiate, and agree before a theory becomes widely accepted.
Explain the notion of the “experimenter’s regress”.
The “experimenter’s regress” is a concept introduced by Harry Collins that describes a circular problem in scientific experiments. Here’s a simplified explanation:
1. Theory Guides the Experiment:
Scientists design and interpret experiments based on a theory. If the experiment produces results that match the theory, they consider the experiment successful.
(we say our evidence is meaningful/good when it fits with our theory)
* Evidence Validates the Theory:
Scientists then use the results of the experiment as evidence to support the theory. If the evidence aligns with the theory, they claim the theory is correct. (a theory is good if the evidence supports it)
* The Circular Problem: Leads to an infinite regress; it’s difficult to use the experiment itself to test the theory
This creates a loop where the validity of the experiment depends on the theory, and the correctness of the theory depends on the experiment. As a result, the experiment can’t independently test or validate the theory—it is already shaped by it.
2. Breaking the Regress:
To escape this circularity, there must be an independent criterion—something outside the theory and experiment—to determine success. Otherwise, you are trying to prove the success of the theory using experimental work that can only be evaluated with respect to that theory.
Example: When early scientists tried to measure the speed of light, they relied on their instruments, which were judged as accurate based on the prevailing theories. However, those same theories were being tested by the instruments, creating a circular problem.
