Talk:Sociology of scientific knowledge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Sociology of scientific knowledge, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
I did make a few changes regarding whether the ANT theorists are to be included in the SSK-field. My view is that it should be kept separate since these theorists have diametrically different conceptions of ontology, and have also debated this widely. Instead I made a separate entry called "Criticism".
What about it? Christopher Kullenberg 20:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect page for Edinburgh School
Just to let you know I've changed this to a disambig page. HJMG 23:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] SSK is Strong Programme: article needs reworking
In general STS use, if I am not mistaken, SSK is synonymous with the strong programme, or actually, these are part of the description of one approach, "Strong Programme in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge," that first emerged as the Edinburgh school.
SSK is not used generally to describe the field of sociology of science or STS. SSK is a subfield. Popper doesn't belong in this group. This article needs a rewrite, perhaps moving some material to the STS or other general science study page. Rubble 19:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] SSK and Sociology of Science
so far, i think both are so close that this article could be merged into sociology of science. do you disagree? capi 04:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- yes i disagree, ssk is closer to sociology of knowledge than sociology of science. it is separate from that too, significantly different in its focus. --Buridan 13:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
