Is scientific knowledge socially constructed? A Bayesian account of Laboratory Life.

Frontiers in research metrics and analytics Pub Date : 2023-08-02 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.3389/frma.2023.1214512
Henry Small
{"title":"Is scientific knowledge socially constructed? A Bayesian account of <i>Laboratory Life</i>.","authors":"Henry Small","doi":"10.3389/frma.2023.1214512","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the book <i>Laboratory Life</i> Latour and Woolgar present an account of how scientific \"facts\" are formed through a process of microsocial interactions among individuals and \"inscription devices\" in the lab initially described as social construction. The process moves through a series of steps during which the details and nature of the object become more and more certain until all qualifications are dropped, and the \"fact\" emerges as secure scientific knowledge. An alternative to this account is described based on a Bayesian probabilistic framework which arrives at the same end point. The motive force for the constructivist approach appears to involve social processes of convincing colleagues while the Bayesian approach relies on the consistency of theory and evidence as judged by the participants. The role of social processes is discussed in Bayesian terms, the acquisition and asymmetry of information, and its analogy to puzzle solving. Some parallels between the Bayesian and constructivist accounts are noted especially in relation to information theory.</p>","PeriodicalId":73104,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in research metrics and analytics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10433636/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in research metrics and analytics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2023.1214512","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the book Laboratory Life Latour and Woolgar present an account of how scientific "facts" are formed through a process of microsocial interactions among individuals and "inscription devices" in the lab initially described as social construction. The process moves through a series of steps during which the details and nature of the object become more and more certain until all qualifications are dropped, and the "fact" emerges as secure scientific knowledge. An alternative to this account is described based on a Bayesian probabilistic framework which arrives at the same end point. The motive force for the constructivist approach appears to involve social processes of convincing colleagues while the Bayesian approach relies on the consistency of theory and evidence as judged by the participants. The role of social processes is discussed in Bayesian terms, the acquisition and asymmetry of information, and its analogy to puzzle solving. Some parallels between the Bayesian and constructivist accounts are noted especially in relation to information theory.

Abstract Image

科学知识是社会构建的吗?对实验室生活的贝叶斯解释。
在《实验室生活》(Laboratory Life)一书中,拉图尔和伍尔加阐述了科学 "事实 "是如何通过实验室中个人与 "铭刻设备 "之间的微观社会互动过程形成的,这一过程最初被描述为社会建构。在这一过程中,对象的细节和性质变得越来越确定,直到所有限定条件都被取消,"事实 "作为可靠的科学知识出现。贝叶斯概率论框架是这一解释的替代方案,其终点与此相同。建构主义方法的动力似乎涉及说服同事的社会过程,而贝叶斯方法则依赖于参与者对理论和证据一致性的判断。从贝叶斯的角度讨论了社会过程的作用、信息的获取和不对称及其与解谜的类比。我们注意到贝叶斯方法和建构主义方法之间的一些相似之处,特别是在信息理论方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信