Difference between revisions of "Sociocultural Factors"

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
(22 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
The theorem states that sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time.  
+
{{Definitional Topic
 +
|Question=What are '''sociocultural factors?'''  How should they be ''defined?''
 +
|Description=
 +
|Formulated Year=2016
 +
|Prehistory=In the Aristotelian-Medieval mosaic, the Cartesian mosaic, and much of the Newtonian mosaic, scientists were for the most part strictly rationalist — a view which dictates that scientific beliefs are a consequence only of reason and evidence.[[CiteRef::Brown (2001)|p. 150]],[[CiteRef::Shapere (1986)|p. 4]] The distinction between intellectual and sociocultural influences in science were not clearly defined, as there were not yet disciplinary boundaries within the sciences. Many factors that influenced scientific change that we now consider to be ''sociocultural'' organically fell under the rationalist umbrella within this highly holistic enterprise of knowledge-seeking.[[CiteRef::Shapere (1986)|p. 4]]
  
−
== Pre-History ==
+
In his article ''External and Internal Factors in the Development of Science'', [[Dudley Shapere]] argues for the formation of disciplinary boundaries within the sciences as a necessary prerequisite for a distinction between intellectual and sociocultural factors. He argues that first, the knowledge-seeking enterprise of science was broken up into a multitude of small specialized disciplines, each smaller discipline with its own laws that dictated the behaviour of particular phenomena. Following from here, scientists in the nineteenth-century began to unify the multitude of smaller disciplines under general laws or ''Grand-Unified Theories'', which were all conceptually and logically compatible with each other. Once scientific sub-disciplines were able to be demarcated as either scientific or non-scientific. Once an idea of what constituted as ''science'' was formed, it was possible for scientists to label all other disciplines that had not made the ''internal'' cut as ''external'' to the scientific enterprise.[[CiteRef::Shapere (1986)]]
−
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
 
−
Numerous philosophers of science have engaged with the role of sociocultural factors in the development of science, prior to the TSC’s inception.
 
  
−
James Brown’s contribution to the dialogue surrounding this topic is made most clear in his book, ''Who Rules in Science''. In it, Brown describes several cases in the history of science that demonstrate sociocultural factors affecting theory acceptance. Examples cited in this volume include the permissibility of mystical and anti-rational ideas in Weimar Germany, and how this heightened the appeal of scientific theories on causality and quantum phenomena, along with tension between Louis Pasteur’s socio-political allegiances and work in crystallography. Brown also makes reference to the four tenets of David Bloor’s strong program, which advises historians on how to study science scientifically. According to Bloor, an historical reconstruction of science should account for:
+
The logical positivists were the first to distinguish influences derived from propositions within the sciences as ''internal'' factors, and all other influences originating in the realm of society as ''external'' factors.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 233]] [[Karl Popper]] also used the terms ''external'' and ''internal'' when discussing sociocultural factors, and mainly discussed the role of the external factors on theory construction.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 233]] In 1970, [[Imre Lakatos]] suggested that what constitutes as ''external'' and what is ''internal'' is defined by the methodology of the time. "External history either provides non-rational explanation of the speed, locality, selectiveness etc. of historic events as interpreted in terms of internal history", Lakatos writes in his ''History of Science and its Rational Reconstruction'', "or, when history differs from its rational reconstruction, it provides an empirical explanation of why it differs. But the rational aspect of scientific growth is fully accounted for by one's logic of scientific discovery."[[CiteRef::Lakatos (1971a)|pp. 105-106]]
−
* '''Causality''': A proper account of science would be causal, that is, it should be concerned with the conditions that bring about belief or states of knowledge.[[CiteRef::Brown (2001)]]
 
−
* '''Impartiality''': It would be impartial with respect to truth and falsity, rationality or irrationality, success or failure. Both sides of these dichotomies will require explanation.[[CiteRef::Brown (2001)]]
 
−
* '''Symmetry''': It would be symmetrical in its style of explanation. The same types of causes would explain, say, true and false, [rational and irrational] beliefs.[[CiteRef::Brown (2001)]]
 
−
* '''Reflexivity''': In principle its patterns of explanation would have to be applicable to sociology itself. Like the requirement of symmetry, this is a response to the need to seek for general explanations. It is an obvious requirement of principle; otherwise sociology would be a standing refutation of its own theories.[[CiteRef::Brown (2001)]]  
 
  
−
Another eminent philosopher that helped shape the discussion of sociocultural factors in science is Dudley Shapere. Shapere believes that scientific practice is laden with inseparable social factors. He provides two ways of explicating this relationship. His '''strong thesis''' states that there is no “internal” factor guiding scientific development independently of non-scientific factors.  His '''weak thesis states''', while there are such internal factors, they are insufficient by themselves to guide science, and must be supplemented by “external” factors.[[CiteRef::Shapere (1986)]]
+
[[Hakob Barseghyan]] agrees with Lakatos in ''The Laws of Scientific Change'' that only a theory of scientific change can tell us which factors are factors are internal to science and which external.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 234]] However, he argues that if we were to define ''sociocultural factors'' as all those factors that are external to scientific change, then the whole question of the role of sociocultural factors would become vacuous; by definition, those factors would never be able to influence scientific change. Therefore, ''sociocultural factors'' cannot be defined in terms of ''external'' factors. It is due to this that the [[Community:Scientonomy|Scientonomy community]] doesn't use the terms ''internal'' and ''external'' to describe intellectual and sociocultural factors.
−
 
+
|Current View=The term is only loosely described in ''The Laws of Scientific Change'' as encompassing all of the non-epistemic factors that affect scientific change including political, economic, and social factors, as well as group and individual interests.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 233-234]] A more precise definition is needed.
−
The logical positivists also upheld explicit views on the role of sociocultural factors in scientific development. They held a traditional view of internal and external (sociocultural) factors. To the positivists, internal factors are merely propositions about the world (both general and singular). External factors are those born in the domains of society, economics, politics, culture, personal and collective religion, and the like.
+
|Related Topics=Role of Sociocultural Factors in Method Employment, Role of Sociocultural Factors in Scientific Change, Role of Sociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance,
−
 
+
|Page Status=Needs Editing
−
For Imre Lakatos, the difference between internal and external factors depended on the accepted methodology of the time. This distinction allowed Lakatos to believe that it was rational for scientists to stick to a theory despite all the anomalies if there was no better theory on the market.[[CiteRef::Shapere (1986)]]
+
}}
−
</div>
+
{{Acceptance Record
−
 
+
|Community=Community:Scientonomy
−
== History ==
+
|Accepted From Era=CE
−
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
+
|Accepted From Year=2016
−
The current formulation of the sociocultural factors theorem has remained unchanged since it’s initial debut in the TSC. It states that sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]]
+
|Accepted From Month=January
−
</div>
+
|Accepted From Day=1
−
 
+
|Accepted From Approximate=No
−
== Current View ==
+
|Still Accepted=Yes
−
Sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time. Factors such as individuals and group interests, power, religion, politics, and economics can affect theory acceptance either in violation or in full accordance with the Laws of Scientific Change. A third outcome would be one in which it is unclear if a historical case of theory acceptance was in accord or in violation of the Laws of Scientific Change.
+
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
−
 
+
}}
−
Hypothetical cases of theory acceptance in violation of the Laws include the Lost Manuscript Case and the Elimination Case.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]] In the former, a community accepts a theory on the basis of a single manuscript which no member of the community has memorized in whole and which cannot be copied. In this case, should the manuscript be destroyed or lost then the theory itself would be lost with no means of replacing it in the community’s scientific mosaic. Such a case would a violation of the First Law due to sociocultural factors. In Elimination Case, all members of a community that adhere to a politically dissatisfactory theory are either killed or driven out of the community by social authorities allowing a theory that does not satisfy the method of the time into the mosaic. Such a case would be a violation of the Second Law due to sociocultural factors. An historical example of this violation can be found in the forced acceptance of Lysenkoism in Soviet Russia under Stalin. All Soviet geneticists that did not accept soft inheritance were sent to labour camps or executed under the Stalinist regime.
 
−
 
 
−
A hypothetical case of theory acceptance in accord with the Laws of Scientific Change is the High Priest Case.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]] In this example a community bears a mosaic that houses the belief that an infallible high priest always grasps the true essence of things. The high priest has the ability to manipulate the mosaic and these manipulations will be accepted because the method employed dictates this. In this case, an individual’s interests dictate which theories get accepted into the mosaic. Yet, the method of this mosaic is a deductive consequence of the infallibility of the high priest, making the acceptance of any theory in accord with their wishes consonant with the Laws of Scientific Change.
 
−
 
 
−
== Open Questions ==
 
−
* How do sociocultural factors affect method employment?
 
−
* Do factors such as individual and collective interests influence the process of scientific change? If so, does this happen in violation of the laws of science change?
 
−
 
 
−
== Related Articles ==
 
−
[[Theory Assessment]]
 
−
 
 
−
[[The Role of Methodology]]
 

Latest revision as of 23:23, 11 December 2022

What are sociocultural factors? How should they be defined?

In the scientonomic context, this term was first used in 2016. The term is currently accepted by Scientonomy community.

Broader History

In the Aristotelian-Medieval mosaic, the Cartesian mosaic, and much of the Newtonian mosaic, scientists were for the most part strictly rationalist — a view which dictates that scientific beliefs are a consequence only of reason and evidence.1p. 150,2p. 4 The distinction between intellectual and sociocultural influences in science were not clearly defined, as there were not yet disciplinary boundaries within the sciences. Many factors that influenced scientific change that we now consider to be sociocultural organically fell under the rationalist umbrella within this highly holistic enterprise of knowledge-seeking.2p. 4

In his article External and Internal Factors in the Development of Science, Dudley Shapere argues for the formation of disciplinary boundaries within the sciences as a necessary prerequisite for a distinction between intellectual and sociocultural factors. He argues that first, the knowledge-seeking enterprise of science was broken up into a multitude of small specialized disciplines, each smaller discipline with its own laws that dictated the behaviour of particular phenomena. Following from here, scientists in the nineteenth-century began to unify the multitude of smaller disciplines under general laws or Grand-Unified Theories, which were all conceptually and logically compatible with each other. Once scientific sub-disciplines were able to be demarcated as either scientific or non-scientific. Once an idea of what constituted as science was formed, it was possible for scientists to label all other disciplines that had not made the internal cut as external to the scientific enterprise.2

The logical positivists were the first to distinguish influences derived from propositions within the sciences as internal factors, and all other influences originating in the realm of society as external factors.3p. 233 Karl Popper also used the terms external and internal when discussing sociocultural factors, and mainly discussed the role of the external factors on theory construction.3p. 233 In 1970, Imre Lakatos suggested that what constitutes as external and what is internal is defined by the methodology of the time. "External history either provides non-rational explanation of the speed, locality, selectiveness etc. of historic events as interpreted in terms of internal history", Lakatos writes in his History of Science and its Rational Reconstruction, "or, when history differs from its rational reconstruction, it provides an empirical explanation of why it differs. But the rational aspect of scientific growth is fully accounted for by one's logic of scientific discovery."4pp. 105-106

Hakob Barseghyan agrees with Lakatos in The Laws of Scientific Change that only a theory of scientific change can tell us which factors are factors are internal to science and which external.3p. 234 However, he argues that if we were to define sociocultural factors as all those factors that are external to scientific change, then the whole question of the role of sociocultural factors would become vacuous; by definition, those factors would never be able to influence scientific change. Therefore, sociocultural factors cannot be defined in terms of external factors. It is due to this that the Scientonomy community doesn't use the terms internal and external to describe intellectual and sociocultural factors.

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this term (it includes all the instances when the term was accepted as a part of a community's taxonomy):
CommunityAccepted FromAcceptance IndicatorsStill AcceptedAccepted UntilRejection Indicators
Scientonomy1 January 2016Yes

All Theories

According to our records, no definition of the term has been suggested.If a definition of this term is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Theories

According to our records, no definition of the term has ever been accepted.

Suggested Modifications

According to our records, there have been no suggested modifications on this term.

Current Definition

The term is only loosely described in The Laws of Scientific Change as encompassing all of the non-epistemic factors that affect scientific change including political, economic, and social factors, as well as group and individual interests.3pp. 233-234 A more precise definition is needed.

There is currently no accepted answer to this question.

Ontology

Existence

There is currently no accepted view concerning the existence of sociocultural factorss.

Disjointness

No classes are currently accepted as being disjoint with this class.

Subtypes

No classes are currently accepted as subtypes of a sociocultural factors.

Supertypes

No classes are currently accepted as supertypes of a sociocultural factors.

Associations

No associations of a sociocultural factors are currently accepted.


If a question concerning the ontology of a sociocultural factors is missing, please add it here.

Dynamics

If a question concerning the dynamics of a sociocultural factors is missing, please add it here.


Related Topics

This term is also related to the following topic(s):

References

  1. ^  Brown, James Robert. (2001) Who Rules in Science? Harvard University Press.
  2. a b c  Shapere, Dudley. (1986) External and Internal Factors in the Development of Science. Science & Technology Studies 4, 1-9.
  3. a b c d  Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.
  4. ^  Lakatos, Imre. (1971) History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions. In Lakatos (1978a), 102-138.

Retrieved from "https://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Sociocultural_Factors&oldid=16769"