About the Book
The recognition of science as a social process in which dissent and negotiation take place is not a new concept. The role of consensus and the extent to which personal relationships affect its formation, however, are rarely discussed in the literature. Examining these phenomena, Kyung-Man Kim argues that sociologists and historians present a deficient account of how science produces reliable knowledge because they have primarily focused on the drama of conflict and disagreements rather than on the process of reaching consensus. Through a careful examination of the community of the evolutionary biologists and geneticists at the turn of the 20th century, Kim reveals the interplay among scientists that generated acceptance of Mendelian genetics. His analysis reveals the inherent weakness in contemporary accounts, and lays the groundwork for a more democratic sociological theory of consensus formation. Based on a large survey of published articles as well as unpublished letters, Kim describes in vivid detail the history of the Mendelian debates. This history serves to illustrate his main theme, as he offers a detailed critique of Merton's structural-functional account of science, and discusses the three dominant research programs in the contemporary sociology of science, including Bloor and Barnes's strong programme, Collins's empirical program of relativism, and Latour's actor-network theory. Throughout, the role of mutual persuasion and criticism in reaching consensus among scientists of differing orientations is clearly illustrated.
Developing a unique approach to the formation of scientific consensus, Kim focuses on the so called "middle-level" scientists and their essential role in criticizing and controlling the more single-minded and prominent elite scientists. Kim contends that it is through these scientists, who are often more accessible in university settings, that new discoveries and ideas will be generally accepted in the scientific community, displayed in textbooks, and eventually, accepted into the core knowledge.
Including a foreword by Donald Campbell and commentaries by eminent historians of genetics, Nils Roll-Hansen and Robert Olby, this important new book will inform sociologists and historians of science, as well as philosophers interested in recent developments of sociology of scientific knowledge. An ideal teaching text, it will be highly useful in courses dealing with genetics, sociology, or philosophy of science
About the Author :
Kyung-Man Kim, Ph.D., received his doctorate in Sociology from the University of Chicago in 1989. An Assistant Professor in the department of Sociology at Sogang University in Seoul, Korea, he has published articles in Social Epistemology, Social Studies of Science, and Social Science Information.
Review :
"Kim's Explaining Scientific Consensus sets a new direction in the sociology and philosophy of science. He raises the key issue, overlooked in the contemporary focus upon the social construction of science: how does the process take place through which controversies at the research forefront become translated into an accepted body of scientific knowledge? Kim's case study goes beyond the elite scientific protagonists to examine the crucial role played by middle-level scientists in forming consensus. The result is a much fuller picture of the scientific community and its knowledge than we have had before." --Randall Collins, Ph.D., University of California, Riverside "By reexamining the controversy between the biometricians and the Mendelians in the early years of this century, Kim clearly shows how incomplete the sorts of explanations of scientific change provided by the post-structuralists actually are. Within a very short time, nearly all of Pearson's allies defected to the Mendelians, and as Kim notes, they changed their minds without changing their social class. Although post-structuralist students of science in the early days officially endorsed a multifactoral view of scientific change, they tended to concentrate on social causes at the expense of the effects of the data that scientists collect and the experiments that they perform. Although Kim does not think that the effects of reason, argument, and evidence are the entire story, he argues persuasively that any explanations of scientific change that omit extensive reference to such cognitive factors are seriously deficient.
As Kim observes, once the Mendelians had to their own satisfaction vanquished Pearson, they fell on each other. The post-structuralists are equally convinced that they have vanquished positivist students of science and have now begun to quarrel among themselves. Some have concluded that causal explanations about the course of science, no matter the character of these causes, are impossible. We can never have any idea about what caused what. All we can do it construct stories about the stories that scientists construct. Kim takes us back to the empirical issues that early geneticists investigated and explains what effects the sorts of experiments that they conducted has on the views that they eventually came to hold. His explanations are clear and balanced. Anyone who finds the content of science interesting will find Kim's book worth reading. It will also irritate a large number of the no longer young students of science who, a generation ago, took such delight in irritating their elders. They will claim parody. So did the targets of their attack." --David L. Hull, Ph.D., Dressler Professor in the Humanities, Northwestern University
"The dispute between the statistically-oriented "biometricians" and the "Medelians" over the nature of inheritance at the beginning of this century is one of the most brutal and fascinating in the history of science. An equally fascinating historical and historiographic controversy arose when the original dispute became the subject of a famous analysis in the new Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Kim's book provides a masterful summary of both disputes, and advances a compelling alternative account by focusing on the way in which a strong consensus eventually emerged. The book should be of wide interest in the science studies and history of science communities." --Stephen Turner, Ph.D., University of South Florida
"Kim's" Explaining Scientific Consensus" sets a new direction in the sociology and philosophy of science. He raises the key issue, overlooked in the contemporary focus upon the social construction of science: how does the process take place through which controversies at the research forefront become translated into an accepted body of scientific knowledge? Kim's case study goes beyond the elite scientific protagonists to examine the crucial role played by middle-level scientists in forming consensus. The result is a much fuller picture of the scientific community and its knowledge than we have had before." --Randall Collins, Ph.D., University of California, Riverside
"By reexamining the controversy between the biometricians and the Mendelians in the early years of this century, Kim clearly shows how incomplete the sorts of explanations of scientific change provided by the post-structuralists actually are. Within a very short time, nearly all of Pearson's allies defected to the Mendelians, and as Kim notes, they changed their minds without changing their social class. Although post-structuralist students of science in the early days officially endorsed a multifactoral view of scientific change, they tended to concentrate on social causes at the expense of the effects of the data that scientists collect and the experiments that they perform. Although Kim does not think that the effects of reason, argument, and evidence are the entire story, he argues persuasively that any explanations of scientific change that omit extensive reference to such cognitive factors are seriously deficient.
As Kim observes, once the Mendelians had to their own satisfaction vanquished Pearson, they fell on each other. The post-structuralists are equally convinced that they have vanquished positivist students of science and have now begun to quarrel among themselves. Some have concluded that causal explanations about the course of science, no matter the character of these cause
"Kim's Explaining Scientific Consensus sets a new direction in the sociology and philosophy of science. He raises the key issue, overlooked in the contemporary focus upon the social construction of science: how does the process take place through which controversies at the research forefront become translated into an accepted body of scientific knowledge? Kim's case study goes beyond the elite scientific protagonists to examine the crucial role played by middle-level scientists in forming consensus. The result is a much fuller picture of the scientific community and its knowledge than we have had before." --Randall Collins, Ph.D., University of California, Riverside
"By reexamining the controversy between the biometricians and the Mendelians in the early years of this century, Kim clearly shows how incomplete the sorts of explanations of scientific change provided by the post-structuralists actually are. Within a very short time, nearly all of Pearson's allies defected to the Mendelians, and as Kim notes, they changed their minds without changing their social class. Although post-structuralist students of science in the early days officially endorsed a multifactoral view of scientific change, they tended to concentrate on social causes at the expense of the effects of the data that scientists collect and the experiments that they perform. Although Kim does not think that the effects of reason, argument, and evidence are the entire story, he argues persuasively that any explanations of scientific change that omit extensive reference to such cognitive factors are seriously deficient.
As Kim observes, once the Mendelianshad to their own satisfaction vanquished Pearson, they fell on each other. The post-structuralists are equally convinced that they have vanquished positivist students of science and have now begun to quarrel among themselves. Some have concluded that causal explanations about the course of science, no matter the character of these causes, are impossible. We can never have any idea about what caused what. All we can do it construct stories about the stories that scientists construct. Kim takes us back to the empirical issues that early geneticists investigated and explains what effects the sorts of experiments that they conducted has on the views that they eventually came to hold. His explanations are clear and balanced. Anyone who finds the content of science interesting will find Kim's book worth reading. It will also irritate a large number of the no longer young students of science who, a generation ago, took such delight in irritating their elders. They will claim parody. So did the targets of their attack." --David L. Hull, Ph.D., Dressler Professor in the Humanities, Northwestern University
"The dispute between the statistically-oriented "biometricians" and the "Medelians" over the nature of inheritance at the beginning of this century is one of the most brutal and fascinating in the history of science. An equally fascinating historical and historiographic controversy arose when the original dispute became the subject of a famous analysis in the new Sociology of Scientific Knowledge . Kim's book provides a masterful summary of both disputes, and advances a compelling alternative account by focusing on the way in which a strong consensuseventually emerged. The book should be of wide interest in the science studies and history of science communities." --Stephen Turner, Ph.D., University of South Florida
"Kim's" Explaining Scientific Consensus sets a new direction in the sociology and philosophy of science. He raises the key issue, overlooked in the contemporary focus upon the social construction of science: how does the process take place through which controversies at the research forefront become translated into an accepted body of scientific knowledge? Kim's case study goes beyond the elite scientific protagonists to examine the crucial role played by middle-level scientists in forming consensus. The result is a much fuller picture of the scientific community and its knowledge than we have had before." --Randall Collins, Ph.D., University of California, Riverside
"By reexamining the controversy between the biometricians and the Mendelians in the early years of this century, Kim clearly shows how incomplete the sorts of explanations of scientific change provided by the post-structuralists actually are. Within a very short time, nearly all of Pearson's allies defected to the Mendelians, and as Kim notes, they changed their minds without changing their social class. Although post-structuralist students of science in the early days officially endorsed a multifactoral view of scientific change, they tended to concentrate on social causes at the expense of the effects of the data that scientists collect and the experiments that they perform. Although Kim does not think that the effects of reason, argument, and evidence are the entire story, he argues persuasively that any explanations of scientific change that omit extensive reference to such cognitive factors are seriously deficient.
As Kim observes, once the Mendelians had to their own satisfaction vanquished Pearson, they fellon each other. The post-structuralists are equally convinced that they have vanquished positivist students of science and have now begun to quarrel among themselves. Some have concluded that causal explanations about the course of science, no matter the character of these causes, are impossible. We can never have any idea about what caused what. All we can do it construct stories about the stories that scientists construct. Kim takes us back to the empirical issues that early geneticists investigated and explains what effects the sorts of experiments that they conducted has on the views that they eventually came to hold. His explanations are clear and balanced. Anyone who finds the content of science interesting will find Kim's book worth reading. It will also irritate a large number of the no longer young students of science who, a generation ago, took such delight in irritating their elders. They will claim parody. So did the targets of their attack." --David L. Hull, Ph.D., Dressler Professor in the Humanities, Northwestern University
"The dispute between the statistically-oriented "biometricians" and the "Medelians" over the nature of inheritance at the beginning of this century is one of the most brutal and fascinating in the history of science. An equally fascinating historical and historiographic controversy arose when the original dispute became the subject of a famous analysis in the new "Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Kim's book provides a masterful summary of both disputes, and advances a compelling alternative account by focusing on the way in which a strong consensus eventually emerged. The book should be of wide interest in the science studies and history ofscience communities." --Stephen Turner, Ph.D., University of South Florida
