Abstract
The claim is made that the norms for justified belief in science require a complex structure of practices and institutional arrangements, that these arrangements have a history which, at crucial junctures, are subject to severe stress, that such severe stress puts at issue the whole epistemic structure of science, and that at present science faces one of these periods, and its future is in doubt.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Bibliography
Barber, B.: 1952,Science and the Social Order, Free Press, Glencoe.
Barnes, B.: 1977,Interests and the Growth of Knowledge, Routledge and Keegan Paul, London.
Ben-David, J.: 1971,The Scientist's Role in Society, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Blissett, M.: 1972,Politics in Science, Little, Brown, New York.
Bloor, D.: 1972, ‘Durheim-Mauss revisited’, inStudies in the History and Philosophy of Science 13, 267–98.
Knorr-Cetina, K.: 1981,The Production of Knowledge, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S.: 1977,Laboratory Life, Sage, London.
Masterman, M.: 1970, ‘The Nature of a Paradigm’, inCriticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Merton, R. K.: 1973,The Sociology of Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Whitely, R.: 1972, ‘Black Boxism and the Sociology of Science’, inSociological Review Monograph 18, 61–92.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Smokler, H. Institutional rationality: The complex norms of science. Synthese 57, 129–138 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01063998
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01063998