NOTES and REFERENCES Chapter I
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NOTES AND REFERENCES Chapter I 1. These beliefs underlie much recent work in sociology of science and are especially prominent in the work of CoD ins, Pickering, Knorr, Mulkay, Barnes and Bloor. See Karin D. Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay, "Introduction: Emerging Principles in Social Studies of Science" in Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, eds. Karin D. Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay (London: Sage, 1983). 2. Michael Mulkay, G.N. Gilbert, and S. Woolgar, "Problem Areas and Research Networks in Science," Sociology, vol. 7 (1975), pp. 187-203. 3. Collins, for example, shows how negotiation over what constitutes an adequate experiment structured research on gravitational waves. But even though he mentions that these disagreements and negotiations were taking place within a broad area of consensus, he does not discuss the role of this consensus in structuring the research and the disagreements. (H.M. Collins, "The Replication of an Experiment in Physics," in Science in Context: Readings in Sociology of Science, eds. Barry Barnes and David Edge (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1982). 4. Richard Whitley, "The Establishment and Structure of the Sciences as Reputational Organizations," in Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies, eds. Norbert Elias, Herminio Martins and Richard Whitley. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook VI (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1982), p. 330. 5. Gerald Geison, "Scientific Change, Emerging Specialties, and Research Schools," History of Science, vol. 19 (1981), pp. 20-40. 6. According to Sorokin, "All the theories are divided into a few major schools, each one being subdivided into its varieties, and each variety being represented by several of the most typical works." Pitirim Sorokin, Contemporary Sociological Theories (New York: Harper and Row, 1928), p.xx. 7. Pierre Duhem, The Aim and Structure ofPhysical Theory (New York: Atheneum, 1962), Part I, Ch. IV. 8. Geison, p. 23. 9. J.B. Morrell, "The Chemist Breeders: The Research Schools of Liebig and Thomas Thompson," Ambix, vol. 23 (1976), pp. 175-86. Robert Marc Friedman, "Constituting the Polar Front, 1919-1920," Isis (1982), pp. 343-362. 10. David L. Krantz, "Schools and Systems: The Mutual Isolation of Operant and Non operant Psychology as a Case Study," Journal of the History ofthe Behavioral Sciences, vol. 7 (1971), p. 90. II. Diana Crane, Invisible Colleges (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969), pp. 87-88. 12. Crane, p. 87. 273 Notes and References 274 13. Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), p. 27. 14. Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963), p. 149. 15. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962); also The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977). 16. Michael Polanyi, "Theory of Potential Adsorption," Science, vol. 141 (1963),1010-13. 17. Crane, pp. 87-88. 18. Mary Hesse argues this point with regard to concepts in Chapter I of her The Structure of Scientific Inference (London: 1974). 19. Edna Heidbredder, "Functionalism," in Schools ofPsychology: A Symposium, ed. David L. Krantz (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969), pp. 35-36. 20. Fritz K. Ringer, The Decline of the German Mandarins (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1969), p. 308. 21. William Coleman, Biology in the XIXth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1977), p. 151. 22. Andre Malraux, The Voices of Silence (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1978), p. 381. 23. Victor Erlich, "Russian Formalism," Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 34 (1973), p. 627. 24. H.R. Niebuhr, "Sects," Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 1967 ed. For a more extensive comparison of schools and sects see F. Znaniecki, The Social Role ofthe Man ofKnowledge (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1940). 25. Malraux, p. 367. 26. Stanislaw Ossowski, Dziela, Vol. 4, 0 Nauce (Collected Works. On Science) (Warsaw: P.W.N., 1967). Translations from Ossowski are my own. 27. Ossowski, p. 226. 28. Ossowski, p. 227. 29. D.O. Edge and M.J. Mulkay, Astronomy Transformed (New York and London: Wiley, 1976). 30. Donald A. MacKenzie Statistics in Britain. 1865-1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981). 31. Jerzy Szacki, "Schools in Science," Polish Sociological Bulletin, vol. 1 (1976), p. 19. 32. Edward Shils, "Tradition, Ecology, and Institution in the History of Sociology ," Daedalus, p. 763. 33. Michael Polanyi, Science. Faith and Society (Chicago,: University of Chicago Press, 1946), p. 19. 34. Richard Whitley, The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences (Oxford: Claren- don Press, 1984). 35. John Ziman, Public Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), p. 133. 36. Ziman, p. Ill. 37. Krantz, p. 87. 38. Crane, p. 87. 39. This role of the academies is described in Joseph Ben- David, "Organization, Social Control and Cognitive Change in Science," in Joseph Ben-David and T.N. Clark, eds., Culture and Its Creators (Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press, 1977), pp. 244-55 passim. 40. Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1973), pp. 3-40. 41. Szacki, "Schools in Science," p. 19. Notes and References 275 42. Szacki, "Schools in Science," p. 19. 43. Szacki, "Schools in Science," p. 20. 44. On marginality and innovation in science, see Michael Mulkay, The Social Process of Innovation (London: Macmillan, 1972); Joseph Ben-David and Randall Collins, "Social Factors in the Origins ofa New Science: The Case of Psychology," American Sociological Review, vol. 31 (1966). 45. The advantages of a peripheral location might, especially in the case of "big science," be outweighed by the disadvatanges of a lack of necessary equipment and resources. 46. Pierre Bourdieu, "The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason," Social Science Information vol. 14 (1975), p. 33. 47. On the autonomy of research institutes see, for example, Ben-David and Collins. "The Social Factors ... " The autonomy of directors of research institutes can be compared with the power of Parisian professors as patrons; see T.N. Clark Prophets and Patrons: The French University and the Emergence ofthe Social Sciences (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973). Chapter II 1. Otto Jespersen, Language (New York: Norton,1964), p. 33; Georges Mounin, Histoire de la linguistique des origines au xx·me siecle (Paris: PDF, 1974), p. 161. 2. Quoted in Jespersen, p. 33. 3. S. Lefmann, Franz Bopp. sein Leben. seine Wissenschaft (Berlin: 1897), pp. 10*, 33*,37*. 4. On the development ofiinguistics in England and the obstacles which it encountered, see Linda Dowling, "Victorian Oxford and the Science of Language," in PMLA, Vol. 97 No. 2 (March 1982), pp. 160-178. 5. See for example the list of Curtius' foreign students in Ernst Windisch, "Georg Curtius," Biographisches Jahrbuchfiir Altertumskunde, vol. 9 (1886), pp. 75-128; reprinted in Thomas A. Sebeok, Portraits of Linguists (Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1966), vol. I, pp. 344-45. 6. Quoted in Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Random House, 1978), p. 98. 7. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1977), p. xii. 8. Friedrich von Schlegel, On the Language and Wisdom ofthe Indians (1808), in The Aesthetic and Miscellaneous Works, trans. E.J. Millington (London: Bohn, 1849). p. 427. 9. Karl Mannheim, "Conservative Thought," in From Karl Mannheim, ed. Kurt Wolff (New York: Oxford Dniv. Press, 1971), p. 147. 10. The question of the origins oflanguage was, of course, not a new one, and it was especially salient during the latter half of the eighteenth century, when Jean-Jacques Rousseau and G. Herder were among the many trying to find an answer to it. They were both transitional figures , incorporating elements of the Enlightenment as well as Romanticism in their thought. On the anti-Enlightenment views of Rousseau and especially Herder, see Isaiah Berlin, Vico and Herder (New York: Random House, 1976, pp. 177-78), where ideas similar to those I describe as Romantic are attributed to them both. The comparative grammarians were much less interested in the question of the origin of language as a human faculty than in the recovery and understanding of that stage of linguistic development when languages achieved the greatest perfection. Both Grimm and Schlegel 276 Notes and References believed, however, that the question of origin might be answered by means of comparative grammar. 11. Jacob Grimm, Vo"eden zur deutschen Grammatik von 1819 und 1822, ed. Hugo Steger (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968), p. 18. 12. Grimm, p. 19. 13. Franz Bopp, A Comparative Grammar of Sanskrit. Zend. Greek. Latin. Gothic. German and Sclavonic Languages, vol. I (1833), trans. E.B. Eastwick (London: Williams and Norgate, 1862), p. v. 14. Franz Bopp, Vocalismus (Berlin: Nicolaische Buchhandlung, 1836), p. 1. 15. It is here that the differences beteween the Romantic conception of an organism and the modern concept of structure (so often based on organic metaphors) become most apparent. Our notions of organism differ from those of the Romantics, and therefore our organic metaphors are based on different premises. For Schlegel and Bopp, a language had an organic structure not because they saw a relationship between its elements, but because they believed that all these elements and their unity were generated by the same life-force. Their concept of an organism is much closer to that of the Naturphilosophen and the vitalists than to that of the reductionist biologists of the mid-nineteenth century. And it should not be forgotten that the designation of something as organic carried within it an explicitly normative judgment: organic entities were harmonious, natural, and vital, with no trace of accident, artifice, or external determination. See also William M. Norman, The Neogrammarians and Comparative Linguistics, Ph.D. Diss. Princeton 1972 (Ann Arbor: Univ. Microfilms International, 1975), p. 19. 16. Wilhelm Dilthey, "The Schleiermacher Biography,~ in Selected Writings, ed.