Making Sense of Science: Understanding the Social Study of Science

by Steven Yearley

`Fluid, readable and accessible ... I found the overall quality of the book to be excellent. It provides an overview of major (and preceding) developments in the field of science studies. It examines landmark works, authors, concepts and approaches ... I will certainly use this book as one of the course texts′ Eileen Crist, Associate Professor, Science & Technology in Society, Virginia Tech Science is at the heart of contemporary society and is therefore central to the social sciences. Yet science studies has often encountered resistance from social scientists. This book attempts to remedy this by giving the most extensive, thorough and best argued account of the field and explaining to social scientists why science matters to them. This is a landmark book that demystifies science studies and successfully bridges the divide between social theory and the sociology of science. Illustrated with relevant, illuminating examples, it provides the ideal guide to science studies and social theory.

224 pages, Paperback

First published November 11, 2004

Reviews

[Lweis · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this book has a valuable message for our times. That message is that not only does science have nothing to fear from postmodern analysis and critique, but that science as a process has always been postmodern. Yearley documents theories on how scientific knowledge is situated, and proceeds from agreement between individuals rather than objective facts shining like artefacts half buried in the sand. But despite this, it is still successful and valuable. I think the ideas in this book are a valuable counter to people claiming that we should treat scientists like infallible priests, as well as to fear-mongers who portray postmodernism as a threat to 'objective' 'scientific' 'knowledge'.

I am not an expert in sociology or science, so I can't comment on whether Yearley is actually providing an accurate or comprehensive review on the field of study he surveys.

My favourite part of the book was a discussion of experimental evidence that often what scientists and policymakers like to think of as a knowledge deficit in the general public is actually a trust deficit. Instead of asking why are people who refuse to accept scientific evidence so stupid, the more accurate question is why do people who refuse to accept scientific evidence not trust the people and institutions providing it.