Konvansiyonalist Cephedeki İç Savaş: Aktör-Ağ Teorisi Güçlü Programa Karşı, No: 15 - 06/2019
Başlık
:
Konvansiyonalist Cephedeki İç Savaş: Aktör-Ağ Teorisi Güçlü Programa Karşı
Yazar(lar)
:
Duygu SARIMURATOĞLU
Title
:
Civil War on the Conventionalist Front: Actor-Network Theory Against Strong Programme
Anahtar Kelimeler
:
Bilimsel Bilgi Sosyolojisi, Konvansiyonalist Ekol, Güçlü Program, Aktör-Ağ Teorisi
Key Words
:
Sociology of Scientific Knowledge, Conventionalist School, Strong Programme, Actor-Network Theory
Özet 1 / Abstract 1
:
Bu makalede Konvansiyonalist Cephedeki iç savaşa sebep olan farklılıklar açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır. Bu bağlamda, Güçlü Program ile Aktör-Ağ teorisinin argümanları arasındaki temel farklılıklardan söz edilmiştir. Güçlü Program, adında da anlaşıldığı üzere bilimsel uğraşın Merton’ın belirttiğinin aksine saf bir pratik olmadığı savından yola çıkmış ve onun sosyal süreçlerden ne şekilde etkilendiğini göstermeye çalışmıştır. Dolayısıyla Güçlü Program, Merton’ın geliştirmiş olduğu pozitivist, yapısal-işlevselci bilim kavrayışına ve bilimin çıkarlardan azade bir uğraşı olduğu anlayışına karşı çıkmıştır. Merton bilimin de sosyolojik analize tabi tutulabileceğini ifade etmiştir, lakin bilimin sosyal olandan etkilenmediğini iddia etmiştir. Fakat Güçlü Program bilimin sosyal süreçlerden etkilendiğini öne sürmüş ve bunu tarihsel örneklerden yola çıkarak açıklama çabası içinde olmuştur. Aktör-Ağ teorisini öne süren Bruno Latour ise Güçlü Programın yılmaz savunucularından David Bloor ile ateşli bir polemiğe girerek Güçlü Programın aşırı rölativist yönünü ve bilimsel pratiğin gerçekleşme sürecinde topluma verdiği ağırlığın derecesini eleştirmiştir. İlaveten, bilimsel pratiğin salt özneler dâhilinde gerçekleşen bir süreç olmadığını, nesnelerin de en az özneler kadar önemli ve etkili olduğunu iddia etmiştir. Güçlü Program, bilimsel keşiflerde tecrübe öncesi inançların etkili olduğunu öne sürmektedir. Fakat Güçlü Program’ın refleksiviteye yaptığı vurgu fazlasıyla önem arz etse de tecrübe öncesi inançların nasıl inceleneceği Güçlü Program’ın en büyük çıkmazlarından birisini teşkil etmektedir. Öte yandan, Aktör-Ağ teorisi sayesinde Güçlü Program’ın yapmış olduğu doğa ile toplum ya da cansız ile canlı arasında yapılan keskin ayrımın yıkılması da bilimsel keşif süreçlerinin daha doğru bir biçimde anlaşılmasına yardımcı olacaktır.
Özet 2 / Abstract 2
:
This article attempts to explain the differences that led to the civil war on the Conventionalist Front. In this context, the main differences between the arguments of Strong Program and Actor-Network theory are mentioned. The Strong Programme, as its name suggests, set off from the argument that scientific pursuit is not a pure practice contrary to what Merton states, and tried to show how it was influenced by social processes. Therefore, the Strong Programme opposed the positivist, structural-functionalist conception of science developed by Merton and the understanding that science is free from interest. Merton stated that science can also be subjected to sociological analysis, but claimed that science was not influenced by the social. But the Strong Programme argued that science is influenced by social processes and tries to explain it from historical examples. Bruno Latour, who put forward the Actor-Network theory, entered into an ardent polemic with David Bloor, and criticized the extreme relativist aspect of the Strong Programme and the degree of weight it gave to society in the process of the realization of scientific practice. In addition, he argued that scientific practice is not merely a process within subjects, but objects are as important and effective as subjects. The Strong Programme suggests that pre-experience beliefs are effective in scientific discoveries. However, although the emphasis of the Strong Program on reflexivity is of great importance, how to examine pre-experience beliefs is one of the biggest dilemmas of the Strong Programme. On the other hand, Actor-Network theory broke the sharp distinction between nature and society or inanimate and living. This will help to understand scientific discovery processes more accurately.
Extended Summary
:
Robert K. Merton, developed a positivist conception of science, and from his structural-functionalist point of view, science was considered an autonomous institution with certain functions. His emphasis on passion for pure science is important. Starting from this, he mentioned four institutional necessities, which he called the norms of pure science necessary for the formation of the modern scientific ethos: universalism, communism, impartiality and organized skepticism. Many criticisms have come to Merton about the functioning of science according to these norms and the inadequacy of these norms in explaining scientific practice. These criticisms are important for understanding the transition to conventionalist schools. One of the criticisms concerns whether scientific norms overlap in the historical process and in all fields of science. The point reached by this criticism is that the normative character of science may ultimately result in the ideology of science. This is a dangerous situation, as this will give rise to the possibility that scientists may seek refuge in the aforementioned norms in order to legitimize their actions. The second criticism is that scientists can act not only rationally but also irrationally because they are not robots. The third criticism arises from the fact that Merton eliminated social processes at the point of scientific development. Although Merton drew a picture of pure scientific practice, it would be wrong to say that science practice is free from ideologies or personal interests. This has resulted in the emergence of the Strong Programme, which translates sociology of science into the sociology of scientific knowledge. Both Strong Programme and Actor-Network theory are included in the Conventionalist School. Conventionalist School denies that the practice of science is a pure scientific pursuit free from interests. According to this school, what is accepted as scientific knowledge belongs to the lifestyle or culture from which it originates. But Actor-Network theory has taken it one step further and has shared the weight of the Strong Programme with the social. Therefore, although they are both in the same school, there are differences of opinion. In this context, it can be said that Actor-Network theory first breaks the sharp distinction between nature and society. Actor-Network theory states that all actors, regardless of whether they are alive or inanimate, are involved in the scientific production process. Thus, the Actor-Network theory, named after Latour, wanted to tell us that every unit that joins the world of science object or living constitute a network of relations. For example, the inclusion of the onion skin that we examined under the microscope into the network of relations resulted in the generalization of the symmetry principle in the Strong Programme. On the other hand, it should be noted that Actor-Network theory is nourished by the Strong Programme, but then it breaks with both it and the classical sociology tradition. Latour and Woolgar used both ethnography and ethnometodology in their laboratory research. After the Strong Programme, the contribution of Actor-Network theory to the study of science is that scientific knowledge is not only socially determined, but socially built from the very beginning. In fact, this construction continues unceasingly, and one of Latour's criticisms of the Strong Programme is that it was the scientific discovery of the Strong Programme and saw it as a finished process. The Strong Programme has put aside the approach that highlights nature in the positivist perspective. In this way, it is very useful to highlight the social one in terms of shedding light on the background of scientific discoveries. However, this emphasis on the impact of the social has resulted in a generalization that only society has an impact on the development of scientific practices. To say that society is the only factor in the realization of scientific practice means to give society a superior role. This, of course, excludes the scientist's unique creative aspects and transforms him into an actor subordinated to society. In addition, simply attributing the decisive power to society would mean both assigning it a position of power and giving it domination power in this context. Given the arguments of the Strong Programme, society here has a panoptic function, even if not in the Foucaultian sense. I accept that this is an extreme comment. But what I really want to say here is that society is both a witness to scientific discoveries and therefore a way of observing them, as well as being a direct influence of scientific practices. It is clear that the social has an impact on the production of scientific knowledge. But it should be debated whether this is as big an impact as the Strong Programme suggests. The Strong Programme states that pre-experience beliefs play a role in the acceptance or rejection of a theory. Even a sociologist should study pre-experience beliefs, but the Strong Programme has not provided a method for this. Latour said: “The germ would not have been recognized without Pasteur; Pasteur would not have been recognized without the germ”. From this point of view, he turned to micro-analysis and examined all the actors in the emergence of scientific practice. He stated that the discovery process is not a finished thing, but a process of continuous occurrence. Therefore, Actor-Network theory can be read as an effort to close the shortcomings of the Strong Programme and take it one step further.
Pdf
:
Konvansiyonalist Cephedeki İç Savaş: Aktör-Ağ Teorisi Güçlü Programa Karşı Tam Metin / Full Text
Pdf
:
Konvansiyonalist Cephedeki İç Savaş: Aktör-Ağ Teorisi Güçlü Programa Karşı İngilizce Tam Metin
No: 15 - 06/2019 - Tüm Makaleler
Makale Arama
Sayı
Anahtar Kelime, Yazar(lar)
Künye
Sahibi / Owner
Ertuğrul Rufayi TURAN
Editör ve Sorumlu Yazı İşleri Müdürü / Editor
Ertuğrul Rufayi TURAN
Editör Yardımcıları / Assistant Editors
Emrah AKDENİZ
Ömer Faik ANLI
Yayın Kurulu / Editorial Board
Ahmet İNAM
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Erdal CENGİZ
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Kurtuluş DİNÇER
(Hacettepe Üniversitesi)
Ertuğrul Rufayi TURAN
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Sedat YAZICI
(Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi)
Emrah Akdeniz
(Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi)
Senem KURTAR
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Seyit COŞKUN
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Ömer Faik ANLI
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Danışma Kurulu / Board of Consultants
A.Kadir ÇÜÇEN
(Uludağ Üniversitesi)
Ayhan SOL
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Barış PARKAN
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Besim DELLALOĞLU
(Sakarya Üniversitesi)
Cemal GÜZEL
(Hacettepe Üniversitesi)
Çetin TÜRKYILMAZ
(Hacettepe Üniversitesi)
Elif ÇIRAKMAN
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Erdinç SAYAN
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Güçlü ATEŞOĞLU
(Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi)
Gülay ÖZDEMİR AKGÜNDÜZ
(Bingöl Üniversitesi)
Güzin YAMANER
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Halil TURAN
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Harun TEPE
(Hacettepe Üniversitesi)
Hüseyin Gazi TOPDEMİR
(Muğla Üniversitesi)
Kubilay AYSEVENER
(Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi)
M.Cihan CAMCI
(Akdeniz Üniversitesi)
Melih BAŞARAN
(Galatasaray Üniversitesi)
Nazile KALAYCI
(Hacettepe Üniversitesi)
Nilgün TOKER KILINÇ
(Ege Üniversitesi)
Remzi DEMİR
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
R. Levent AYSEVER
(Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi)
Serpil SANCAR
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Yasin CEYLAN
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Zeynep DİREK
(Koç Üniversitesi)
M. Murat YÜCEŞAHİN
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Vefa Saygın ÖĞÜTLE
(Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi)
Sekreterya / Secretariat
Zeynep İrem ÖZATAY
Yazışma Adresi / Mailing Address
Ankara Üniversitesi,
Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi, Felsefe Bölümü, Ankara

Posseible Düşünme Dergisi hakemli bir dergidir. Yılda iki sayı olmak üzere elektronik ortamda yayınlanır. Posseible Düşünme Dergisi 2016 yılından itibaren The Philosopher's Index tarafından dizinlenmektedir.
ISSN: 2147-1622
editor@posseible.com
www.posseible.com
Tel: 0 312 310 3280 / 1232 – 1233
Posseible Düşünme Dergisi - editor@posseible.com
İşbu sitenin tüm hakları saklıdır. Site içerisindeki dökümanlar izinsiz ve kaynak gösterilmeden kullanılamaz. © 2012
Web Tasarım