SOCIOLOGY AND HISTORY: NOTES ON RAPPROCHEMENT

The bases for distinguishing between sociology and history are examined and found to be insupportable insofar as the subject matter of the two disciplines coincides. The distinctions between (1) ideographic and nomothetic science, (2) art and science, and (3) humanism and science have been used to justify separating historical from sociological inquiry; in fact, these distinctions are not logically relevant to identifying fields of inquiry. This argument is supported by considering the logic of inquiry, as well as by studying the research activities of historians and sociologists. Rapprochement between history and ,sociology is urged to erase logical contradictions, and to wed humanistic and artistic concerns with the "science" of sociological inquiry.http://web.ku.edu/~starjrn

O Arbítrio da Matemática: mentes, moral e números

Este artigo tem como tema a Sociologia da Matemática. Seu objetivo é desenvolver um encaminhamento para uma compreensão do que vem a ser “o social”, de tal forma que seja aberta uma discussão sobre as fronteiras e as margens da Matemática e da Educação Matemática. Discutindo algumas formas de ver a Matemática, acadêmica ou pública, e considerando questões como ética, moral e valores em sala da aula, os autores questionam o mito do “arbítrio da Matemática”. Tradução: Jussara de Loiola Araúj

Seeding Science, Courting Conclusions: Reexamining the Intersection of Science, Corporate Cash, and the Law

Social scientists have expressed strong views on corporate influences over science, but most attention has been devoted to broad, Black/White arguments, rather than to actual mechanisms of influence. This paper summarizes an experience where involvement in a lawsuit led to the discovery of an unexpected mechanism: A large corporation facing a multibillion-dollar court judgment quietly provided generous funding to well-known scientists (including at least one Nobel prize winner) who would submit articles to "open," peer-reviewed journals, so that their "unbiased science" could be cited in an appeal to the Supreme Court. On balance, the corporation's most effective techniques of influence may have been provided not by overt pressure, but by encouraging scientists to continue thinking of themselves as independent and impartial

The SocialRelations Of Physics Mysticism And Mathematics

ix.309 hal.;23 c

Romancing the robots: social robots and society

By the very nature of what they do as scientists, sociologists and anthropologists are necessarily always in the midst of other people. They are in the midst of other people the way physicists are in the midst of electrons and detectors, the way chemists are in the midst of chemicals and test tubes, the way biologists are in the midst of cells and frogs. Very often now, on account of developments in social studies of science since the late 1960s, sociologists and anthropologists find – or rather plant – themselves in the midst of other researchers. Sometimes, and sometimes annoyingly, they plant themselves in the midst of other researchers while they are engaged in their research or related professional activities. Sometimes the sociologists and anthropologists are participants who contribute to the research agenda of their subjects; sometimes they observe and interview as non-participants. Given this reality of their work, sociologists and anthropologists can or must appear at least on occasion intruders, pricks of conscience, or moral entrepreneurs, and obstacles rather than facilitators of research. This role of ethnographer of science, however, has proven itself over and over to be a source of important new insights and understandings about the nature of scientific practice. They can, of course, at the same time serve as the consciousness as well as the conscience of the research group. I have planted myself in your midst in part to continue my empirical studies of scientific and engineering practice. The other reasons I am here have to do with my interests in social robotics per se as a sociologist of mind and thinking