The Philosophy of Science and Technology: Syllabus

Reference Information for Spring 2009

James Collier
Office: 433 Shanks
Hours: 1-2 T,H and by appointment
(O) 231-8340
jim.collier@vt.edu
AOL IM: CollierVT

Joe Pitt
Office: 233 Major Williams
Hours: 1-3 W and by appointment
(O) 231.5760
jcpitt@vt.edu

Course Description

One might argue that Science and Technology Studies (STS) originated as a philosophical dispute regarding the incommensurability of scientific paradigms. Using philosophy as a wedge, and fashioning a ready assortment of empirical methods, early STS researchers challenged received views of science and technology. These challenges met with great curiosity and apparent success. A new academic field was born. As STS grew, however, its philosophical roots became hidden, buried under the detritus of method. The loss and misapprehension of philosophy by STS practitioners and critics alike fueled the fear and antagonism of the "science wars?" A decade after the science wars, STS busily traces actor-networks. Anti-humanist projects reign. We dare not. In forgetting the philosophical questions of our past, we do not know how to ask the questions for our future. In this course, we seek to understand, reclaim and re-imagine the philosophical origins, motivations and innovations of STS. In so doing we will consider the following questions:

    • What were the philosophical origins and commitments of STS?
    • Does STS still need philosophy, or philosophy STS?;
    • What philosophical questions should STS pose and try to answer?;
    • Might STS develop a unique philosophy?;
    • Might STS provide a different way of conducting or governing academic inquiry?

Course Goals

• To examine the philosophical beginnings and character of the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS);

• To analyze the relationship between philosophy and method in STS;

• To consider the effect of the "science wars" on the philosophical development of STS;

• To pose questions, to form responses, to initiate discussion and to forward arguments on the interrelation of philosophy and STS;

• To explore whether STS can, or should, develop a unique philosophy of the study of science and technology.

The Story of the Course

As any course, ours rests on a set of assumptions — assumptions you should challenge freely. Befitting STS, the instructors have complimentary but differing tales of STS's beginnings. From Pitt, then:

As I see it, one of the original sources of the development of STS came from the breakdown of positivism and the realization that the origins, nature, changing character of science (nobody really talked about technology) was too big a topic for any one discipline (see Laudan's Progress and Its Problems, Part 2). History of Science was essentially internal at that point and missed the larger social context and forces that affected science. SSK was also going internal, rejecting Mertonian norms and the institutional character of science in favor of science as the search for personal power (reflecting the constant intellectual insecurities of sociologists no matter what they studied). What Kuhn tried to show us, perhaps unintentionally, was that there were other internal and external factors that needed to be considered and that in so doing philosophical problems arose in reconciling these perspectives. But even then, by suggesting that all three disciplines were needed, the topic was still science and not science and technology — even though some rhetoric about technology was occasionally tossed in. So a true STS approach could not emerge until history, philosophy and sociology of technology came into their own. When the approaches of all of these intellectual enterprises are considered in terms of their contributions to understanding science and technology, it is manifest that no one method can dominate such an endeavor.

But, your (Collier's) view does not contradict this perspective, for what you have done is isolate the internal struggles of sociologists in their attempt to take advantage of an opportunity to seize control of a problem area once the alleged demise of positivism was evident.

So, what to do about these two somewhat different views? One, you can let them emerge in the course debate. Two, you can include it as an alternative view. Three, you can set it up as a set of differences between the instructors and ask the class to figure it out by the end of the semester.

From Collier, then:

Initially, we assume a broad narrative of the development of STS. STS was a critical reaction to the post-World War II social transformations wrought by science and technology. With terrible finality, science and technology won the war. To win the peace science, with federal assistance, promised an "endless frontier" of social and economic progress. The social contract struck between science, industry and the federal government held promise for both great progress and great destruction. Payment for new medicines, increased security and more employment was the cold war, the arms race, and the expansion of the military-industrial complex. As Eisenhower warned in 1961:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

The political anxiety captured in Eisenhower's speech, and the intellectual vanguard forwarded by the publication of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in 1962, signaled the necessity of a broad, sophisticated understanding of science, technology and society. Kuhn's book, growing out of Harvard's general education curriculum, described an historical approach to, and knowledge about, science and technology. Integrating history and philosophy of science appeared both to be an effective way of teaching students how to assess, and make decisions about, science, and to be a tonic to positivism's excesses. We assume, then, that the publication of Structure marks both the rise of STS and, subsequently, the fall of philosophy in STS.

The political ethos associated with 1960's radicalism, and the oft-debated lessons of Structure, was conveyed effectively by practitioners in sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK). The rise of the the Edinburgh School and the Bath School (and their associated methods) relegated philosophy further to the background of the STS triumvirate. Armed with micro-sociological techniques, methods and critical theory STS practitioners "construct facts" about objects of study by performing fieldwork of scientific and technological sites. Once the facts are constructed, little room remains for philosophical queries. The embrace of fieldwork, epitomized in Laboratory Life, demonstrated the possibilities of privileging the object of inquiry over the inquirer. Recognizing the agency of objects helped put to rest the shopworn bifurcations and definition mongering seen as the arid legacy of philosophy. Much current STS continues in the vein established by the "unparalleled" (Latour, "For Bloor and Beyond," 1999) influence of the strong programme and in the dominant method of contemporary STS, actor-network theory.

In various guises, actor-network theory (ANT) dominates the STS landscape. ANT, as practiced by many researchers, becomes an all-purpose theoretical and methodological orientation that allows for the rapid, endless, production of marketable case studies — cases seasoned with the right amount of reflexive awareness and post-modern guile. These cases, these occasions for constructing facts and artifacts, pile up in the pages of leading STS journals. We find that these cases, and their accompanying methods, lead to philosophical questions that must be addressed for STS to develop. So, then, from our potted history to a more explicit enumeration of some assumptions guiding this course:

    We assume that STS, in part, began as a philosophical response to the conundrum of the post-war expansion of science and technology;
    We assume that philosophy is vital, if not necessary, to the conduct of STS;
    We assume that the sociological wing of STS is dominant for reasons and outcomes we will explore;
    We assume that method in STS may be anti-philosophical;
    We assume STS, to grow, requires a philosophy of its own.

Certainly our assumptions may by in error. Let's take a spirited look.

Assignments

Grading Criteria

Forming Questions; Leading Discussion

Once during the semester, each class member will pose questions to the appropriate forum on the wiki and lead the class discussion. Members of the class will evaluate the presentation through an on-line form. Scores and comments will be forwarded to the instructors. The instructors will share comments, anonymously, with the presenters. The instructors will provide an overall assessment of the presentation. Please refer to the essay sequence assignment.

Responses

Class members not leading a given week's discussion will provide 350-500 word responses to selected questions to the appropriate forum on the wiki. As the responses are time sensitive, you will not have a opportunity for late submission. Please note, however, you do have the opportunity to take a well-planned pass during selected weeks. Responses will be evaluated by the number completed as follows (Please refer to the essay sequence assignment.):

    8 or more responses: A
    7 responses: B
    6 responses: C
    5 of fewer responses: F

Essays

We will divide the class to assess a given essay. If, for example, Collier grades "Smith's" Essay One, Pitt will grade Smith's Essay Two and vice versa. In assessing the essays, we will look to the norms of academic argument. To that end, each essay will (Please refer to the essay sequence assignment.):

    Define carefully the idea or issue being explored;
    Pose an explicit central question about the idea or issue;
    Provide an arguable claim that takes a position on the central question;
    Offer coherent argumentative logic;
    Lend textual evidence to support the argument's claim.

You may revise Essay One as many times as you wish during the semester. We will average the grades. Given time constraints, you will not have the opportunity to revise Essay Two.

Texts

Texts are listed in order of their appearance in the course:

Honor System

This course follows university policies pertaining to academic honesty and plagiarism. If you any have questions please ask us, or consult the Graduate Honor System web site.

Philosophy of STS