How scientific knowledge is implicated in establishing, contesting, and maintaining social order
Filed under: Science, Social Studies, Social Theory, Technology | Tagged: authority, authority in scientific knowledge, bio-societies, biotechnology, certainty, challenging expert advice, contemporary politics, credibility of expert advice, data with-holding, ethical and legal and social issues, ethics, expert advice in public policy, expert advice studies, expertise studies, Golem, honesty in scientific knowledge, how advisory bodies bring authoritative advice to the p, human values, intellectual property, knowledge and technology and property, life sciences, making things public, map-making, mapping social order, mapping systems and moral order, measuring bio-economics, mere replication, Michael Mulkay, ontological certitude, peer review, politics of naming, politics of nomenclature, politics of science and technology, problematic authority, property formation, public proofs, replication, research tools, risk disputes, science advice, science and social order, science and technology and human values, science in the American polity, scientific exchange, social dimensions of science and technology, social dimensions of scientific writing, social order and social cohesion, social production of scientific knowledge, social production of social order, Social Studies of Science, sociology of science, Sokal affair, states of knowledge, Stephen Hilgartner, sunset of certainty, sunset of ontological certitude, sustaining expert advice, the production of credibility of expert advice, trust in scientific knowledge, ways of knowing | Leave a Comment »
