IB Philosophy 6.3.2 the Effects of Society and Social Values on Science Notes

Science as a Social Enterprise

1. As explored in 6.3.1, the relationship between science and values raises fundamental questions about scientific objectivity. This topic examines the reverse direction of influence: how does society shape the science that gets done, the questions that get asked, and the conclusions that are accepted?
2. Thomas Kuhn argued in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that science operates within paradigms, which are themselves products of particular historical and social circumstances. The questions scientists ask, the methods they consider legitimate, and the results they find significant are all conditioned by their social context.
3. As established in 6.3.1, Helen Longino's distinction between constitutive and contextual values reveals the mechanism by which social values enter scientific practice. This section examines the concrete sociological consequences of that influence: how funding, politics, and culture shape what science is done and whose interests it serves.
4. The sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) is a field that asks: what social forces shape which ideas count as scientific facts? Thinkers such as David Bloor and Barry Barnes argue that what counts as a scientific fact is not determined by nature alone but also by the social negotiations (the debates, negotiations, and power dynamics) among scientists.

The Strong Programme in Practice

1. The cold fusion controversy of 1989 illustrates the Strong Programme's claims vividly.
   1. When physicists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced they had achieved nuclear fusion at room temperature, the scientific community's response was shaped as much by social factors as by evidence.
   2. The announcement was made at a press conference rather than through peer review, violating the norm of organised scepticism. Replication attempts produced conflicting results: some laboratories reported positive findings, others found nothing.
2. Bloor and Barnes would argue that the eventual consensus against cold fusion was not simply evidence winning out.
   1. It was a social process in which institutional authority and the norms of legitimate practice collectively determined what counted as a fact.
3. Karl Popper would resist this conclusion, maintaining that science progresses through conjecture and refutation and that the logic of falsification provides an objective method independent of social influence. However, critics note that even the decision about what counts as a successful falsification involves judgment calls shaped by social context.
4. Paul Feyerabend argued in Against Method that there is no single scientific method and that the history of science shows that progress has often occurred through rule-breaking and the influence of non-scientific factors, including social and political pressures. (Feyerabend’s epistemological anarchism and the Galileo case are examined in 6.1.2.)
5. The feminist philosophy of science, advanced by thinkers such as Sandra Harding and Longino, highlights how gender biases have historically shaped scientific research agendas and interpretations. Harding’s concept of strong objectivity argues that acknowledging the social position of the knower actually produces better, more rigorous science.
6. The transformation of primatology in the 1970s and 1980s provides a compelling example. For decades, predominantly male primatologists described primate social life in terms of male dominance hierarchies, competition, and aggression, unconsciously projecting gendered assumptions onto their observations.
7. When female primatologists such as Sarah Blaffer Hrdy and Jeanne Altmann entered the field, they noticed phenomena their predecessors had overlooked: female mate choice, cooperative alliances, and infanticide as a male reproductive strategy that females actively resisted.
8. Harding would argue this exemplifies strong objectivity: incorporating diverse perspectives produced a more accurate, not less objective, scientific picture.

Merton and the Social Norms of Science

1. A key philosophical tension emerges here: if social values inevitably shape science, does this mean science cannot be objective at all? Or does recognizing these influences allow scientists to develop better safeguards against bias, actually strengthening objectivity?
2. Robert Merton identified a set of norms that he believed governed the scientific community: universalism, communism (open sharing of knowledge), disinterestedness, and organized scepticism. These norms are themselves social values, suggesting that science depends on a particular value framework to function properly.
3. The cold fusion episode illustrates what happens when Merton's norms break down: Fleischmann and Pons bypassed organised scepticism and initially withheld experimental details, causing widespread confusion and lasting damage to their credibility.
4. The relationship between science and social values is therefore not simply one of contamination. Some social values may be essential to good science, while others may distort it.
5. The challenge for philosophers is to determine which values support and which undermine reliable knowledge production.

Funding and the Direction of Research

1. One of the most direct ways society shapes science is through research funding. Governments, corporations, and foundations decide which projects receive financial support, and these decisions reflect social priorities, economic interests, and political agendas.
2. In most countries, publicly funded science is allocated through agencies that set research priorities based on perceived national needs.