What do you think?
Rate this book
The Scientist's Role in Society: A Comparative Study
Birbirinden ayrilamaz olan ve birbirini tanimlayan bilim insani - akademi - akademisyen kavramlari nasil olustu ? Evrensel bir eylem olan bilimsel uretim surecinde akademilerin daha dogrusu bilim insaninin rolu nedir ? Bilim insani - akademisyenin farkli toplumlardaki, politik, dinî ve ekonomik sistemlerle iliskisinin boyutlari nedir? Bilim insani - akademisyenin yonetenler ve tcirlerle iliskisinin tarihsel boyutlari nedir? "Bilim Insaninin Toplumdaki Rolu" adli bu kitap, toplumda en cok saygi duyulan bireyler olarak bilim insanini ve universiteleri inceliyor. Hem bilim insaninin "kim" oldugunu hem de bilim insaninin icinde yasadigi toplumsal iliskilerle bagini arastiriyor. En azindan dolayli olarak ahlkin geleneksel dinî temelini zayiflatma sorumlulugunu tasiyan, ama bir toplumsal ahlk yaratmaya da gucu yetmeyen bilim insani?akademisyen, toplum nezdinde ilhî unsurlardan sonra en cok saygi duyulan "toplulugu" olusturuyor. Cunku "toplumun" bilim insani kavramina bakisi, toplumdaki bu
236 pages, Paperback
First published August 27, 1971
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 31, 2014
A. Scientists role: The majority of the book is a study of the emergence and development of the “social role” of the scientist. (The first chapter is a study of the state of the field of the sociology of science). This role first appeared in the 16th and early 17th century Europe, but the word first appeared in 19th century England. The scientific role has changed since then from unspecialized “amateurs” with little training and living on private income. Today the scientist is a specialized university worker or researcher trained and holding an advanced degree. Despite all of this specialty, the word ‘scientist’ is not just a myth. There are common journals (Science and Nature), common methods, and common goals among all scientists. What separates the scientist today from other periods is a technical investigation coupled with the utopian belief in the advancement of science.
B. The book examines the chronologically successive areas in which science has been dominant. These include Greek science, medieval Italian science, and then the successive domination of English, French, German, and American science. He argues that science is not necessary for a society to function like technical ability, religion, or moral philosophy is. Three critical problems must be solved in sequence if a scientific community is to flourish. The relative success or failure of science at different points in history is based upon how well they solved these three problems.
1. The first problem. Greek and medieval Italian science failed to establish a separate role for the scientist. There was no career position which was concerned with empirical fact and a neutrality to moral and political issues.
2. This first problem was solved in 17th century England where science became an organized activity. The problem here was that science did not achieve intellectual autonomy (the second problem). Support of science was associated with other social issues.
3. Intellectual autonomy for science was achieved in France and protected by the Academie des Sciences. This allowed the French scientists to dominate the later half of the 18th. But they failed to solve the third problem, or organizational autonomy which led to their decline by 1840.
4. Germans solved this first problem by allying science with the University system. Formal research courses enhanced the development of science. But, this system became to rigid and restrained further growth of science.
5. The United States then became the dominant scientific force in the 20th. Its variety of scientific funding allowed the growth of science in new directions. But, Ben-David cautions that an overdependence on governmental funds will remove the flexibility fro this system.
C. The sociology of scientific knowledge: The argument is that the internal disciplinary traditions are a permanent source affecting scientific change. External sources of change are ephemeral and random. Thus, Ben-David argues against a specific type of the sociology of scientific knowledge because sociologists are concerned with long-term systematic forces in society. He argues against those who claim a relativist position. Thus, the turning from speculation to empirical research is one of the main themes of this book.
D. Kuhn attacks this book by arguing against Ben-David’s positivist pure science.
B. The book examines the chronologically successive areas in which science has been dominant. These include Greek science, medieval Italian science, and then the successive domination of English, French, German, and American science. He argues that science is not necessary for a society to function like technical ability, religion, or moral philosophy is. Three critical problems must be solved in sequence if a scientific community is to flourish. The relative success or failure of science at different points in history is based upon how well they solved these three problems.
1. The first problem. Greek and medieval Italian science failed to establish a separate role for the scientist. There was no career position which was concerned with empirical fact and a neutrality to moral and political issues.
2. This first problem was solved in 17th century England where science became an organized activity. The problem here was that science did not achieve intellectual autonomy (the second problem). Support of science was associated with other social issues.
3. Intellectual autonomy for science was achieved in France and protected by the Academie des Sciences. This allowed the French scientists to dominate the later half of the 18th. But they failed to solve the third problem, or organizational autonomy which led to their decline by 1840.
4. Germans solved this first problem by allying science with the University system. Formal research courses enhanced the development of science. But, this system became to rigid and restrained further growth of science.
5. The United States then became the dominant scientific force in the 20th. Its variety of scientific funding allowed the growth of science in new directions. But, Ben-David cautions that an overdependence on governmental funds will remove the flexibility fro this system.
C. The sociology of scientific knowledge: The argument is that the internal disciplinary traditions are a permanent source affecting scientific change. External sources of change are ephemeral and random. Thus, Ben-David argues against a specific type of the sociology of scientific knowledge because sociologists are concerned with long-term systematic forces in society. He argues against those who claim a relativist position. Thus, the turning from speculation to empirical research is one of the main themes of this book.
D. Kuhn attacks this book by arguing against Ben-David’s positivist pure science.
January 6, 2025
This, another Kuhn reference, is one of the broadest science history books in terms of covered time period. That breadth may have been to its detriment if I were well-versed in a particular time period, but as I am not, I found it to be a good general overview. The only thing I would wish for is a modern addendum, becuase I think that we may be a different era in this book's classification.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews