Advertisement

PSA 1974 pp 529-548 | Cite as

Integrating the Philosophy and the Social Psychology of Science or a Plague on two Houses Divided

  • Ian I. Mitroff
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 32)

Abstract

A few years ago at the conclusion to one of his papers, Norwood Russell Hanson wrote: … scientific observation and scientific interpretation need neither be joined nor separated. They are never apart, so they need not be joined. They cannot, not even in principle, be separated, and it is conceptually idle to make the attempt. Observation and interpretation are related symbiotically so that each conceptually sustains the other, while separation kills both. This will not be news to any practicing scientist, but it may seem heretical indeed to certain philosophers of science for whom Analysis has, alas, become indistinguishable from Division (1967, p. 99).

While not everyone would agree with Hanson regarding the role of observation and interpretation, I have often wondered what would have happened had Hanson attempted to make the same argument regarding the philosophy and the social psychology of research, if indeed he would have been inclined to attempt such an argument at all I suspect that if Hanson had made such an argument the reaction to it would have been intense. First of all, it is a fact of academic life that we have separated the philosophy and the social psychology of science. Second, many, if perhaps not most, of those who practice the philosophy and the social psychology of science see no need in joining them whatsoever, let alone that each “conceptually sustains the other." Yet this is the very heretical position I would like to argue. To be more specific, I would like to argue that the philosophy and the social psychology of science not only need to be joined but that they ought to be joined They ought to be joined because not only does each conceptually sustain the other but that each conceptually presupposes the other.

Keywords

Social Psychology American Sociological Review Scientific Revolution Individual Scientist Irreducible Element 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Ackoff, R. L. and Emery, F.: 1973, On Purposeful Systems, Aldine-Atherton, Chicago.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, S. B. and Dolby, R. G.: 1971, ‘The Scientific Ethos: A Deviant Viewpoint’, Archives Européens de Sociologie 11, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Churchman, C. W.: 1948, Theory of Experimental Inference, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Churchman, C. W.: 1971, The Design of Inquiring Systems, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Eiduson, B. T.: 1962, Scientists: Their Psychological World, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Feyerabend, P. K.: 1970, ‘Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge’, in M. Radner and S. Winokur (eds.), Analyses of Theories and Methods of Physics and Psychology, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  7. Hanson, N. R.: 1967, ‘Observation and Interpretation’, in S. Morgenbesser (ed.), Philosophy of Science Today, Basic Books, New York, pp. 89–99.Google Scholar
  8. Kiesler, C. A.: 1971, The Psychology of Commitment, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  9. King, M. D.: 1971, ‘Reason, Tradition, and the Progressiveness of Science’, History and Theory 10, 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kuhn, T. S.: 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Lakatos, I.: 1970, ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’, in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge, University Press.Google Scholar
  12. McClelland, D. C: 1970, ‘On the Psychodynamics of Creative Physical Scientists’, in L. Hudson (ed.), The Ecology of Human Intelligence, Penguin, London.Google Scholar
  13. Merton, R. K.: 1949, ‘Science and Democratic Structure’, in R. K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Merton, R. K.: 1963, ‘The Ambivalence of Scientists’, Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital 112, 77–97.Google Scholar
  15. Merton, R. K.: 1969, ‘Behavior Patterns of Scientists’, American Scientist 58, 1–23.Google Scholar
  16. Mitroff, I. I.: 1972, ‘The Mythology of Methodology: An Essay on the Nature of a Feeling Science’, Theory and Decision 2, 274–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mitroff, I. I.: 1973, ‘Systems, Inquiry, and the Meanings of Falsification’, Philosophy of Science 40, 255–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mitroff, I. I. and Mason, R. O.: 1974a, ‘On Evaluating the Scientific Contribution of the Apollo Moon Missions Via Information Theory: A Study of the Scientist-Scientist Relationship’, Management Science, 20, 1501–1513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mitroff, I. I.: 1974b, ‘Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists’, American Sociological Review 39, 579–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitroff, I. I.: 1974c, The Subjective Side of Science: A Philosophical Inquiry Into the Psychology of the Apollo Moon Scientists, Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  21. Morgenbesser, S.: 1967, ‘Psychologism and Methodological Individualism’, in S. Morgen-besser (ed.), Philosophy of Science Today, Basic Books, New York, pp. 160–174.Google Scholar
  22. Mulkay, M.: 1969, ‘Some Aspects of Cultural Growth in the Natural Sciences’, Social Research 36, 22–52.Google Scholar
  23. Popper, K. R.: 1964, The Poverty of Historicism, Harper, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Popper, K. R.: 1965, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Harper, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Popper, K. R.: 1970, ‘Normal Science and Its Dangers’ in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 51–58.Google Scholar
  26. Reichenbach, H.: 1968, The Rise of Scientific Philosophy, University of California Press.Google Scholar
  27. Roe, A.: 1961, ‘The Psychology of the Scientist’, Science 134, 456–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shapere, D.: 1966, ‘Meaning and Scientific Change’, in R. G. Colodny (ed.) Mind and Cosmos, University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 41–85.Google Scholar
  29. Toulmin, S.: 1972, Human Understanding, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Zuckerman, H.: 1967, ‘Nobel Laureates in Science: Patterns of Productivity, Collaboration and Authorship’, American Sociological Review 32, 391–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zuckerman, H.: 1968, ‘Patterns of Name-ordering among Authors of Scientific Papers: A Study of Social Symbolism and Its Ambiguity’, American Journal of Sociology 74, 276–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zuckerman, H.: 1972, ‘Interviewing an Ultra-Elite’, Public Opinion Quarterly 36, 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian I. Mitroff
    • 1
  1. 1.University of PittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations