One tradition in sociology argues that the rigorous application of scientific techniques will produce objective data, which the scientist then analyzes and generalizes about. We find the facts and the facts speak for themselves. Science makes progress by more precisely describing facts or finding new ways to create facts. We are being objective, in part, because the facts are thought to be “out there,” something we have discovered, and in doing “good science” we are being objective. This means that we are being value-free. Another tradition of sociology argues that all knowledge, including notion of objectivity is a product of human social activity. If you are interested in a thorough critique of the idea that science is value-free and that there is objective knowledge, you might consider Value-Free Science by Robert Proctor(1991). There is a lively debate in the area of philosophy or social theory called the philosophy of science. This includes subareas dealing with the nature of knowledge and how we know what we claim to know. Many traditional defenders of “good science ” ignore these larger debates. No knowledge is absolute. Some speak of “probability,” while others of emerging nature of the universe. Many in this tradition argue that sociology and science in general are not value-free. Every person makes value decisions as they consider topics for research. This approach argues that a scientist can approximate and come closer to the goal of objectivity when she reflects upon her own values and considers how they affect the research process. Some argue that if there is no objectivity, everything becomes hopelessly relative. The response might be that things are not hopelessly relative. The various scientific communities are orgarnized to promote the ongoing quest for more adequate ways of understanding the particular slice of the universe claimed by each discipline. This approach simply recognizes the human social aspects of research and the importance of hornesty and communication in the various scientific communities.
I Vocabulary
- due to – из-за (= because of)
- conquest – завоевание
- diverse population – разное население
- facial gestures – мимика
- synthetic odors – ароматы
- in lieu of – в качестве (чего-либо), вместо (чего-либо)
- the soles of your feet – подошвы ваших ног
- insult – оскорбление
- a loud belch – отрыжка
- deeply rooted – имеющий глубокие корни
- violated – нарушенное (напр., правило)
- violation – нарушение (договора)
- public humiliation – публичное унижение
- to commite suicide – совершить самоубийство (суицид)
- crucial – решающий, критический
- precisely – точно
- new facet of nature – новая грань природы
- initiated – инициированный, введенный в общество
- eagerly – с нетерпением
- value-free – не имеющий ценности
- subareas – подчиненные, второстепенные территории
- to deal with – иметь дело с…
- to promote – продвигать (в общественном, коммерческом плане)
II Comprehension check
- How can people communicate apart from spoken language?
- What do most societies develop?
- Give examples of some gestures’ meanings in different cultures.
- What is a folkway?
- What do mores involve?
- In what societies can public humilation be devasting?
- What similarities can we compare in different cultures?
- Why may the culture of a particular people change?
- What may arid conditions cause?
- What did the many ice ages do?
- How do humans react to the product of their own handiwork?
- What is the crucial ingredient in the process of cultural development?
- What are the new techniques accompanied by?
- How is new knowledge created?
- What does one tradition in sociology argue?
- How does science make progress?
- What does another tradition of sociology argue?
- What does the philosophy of science include?
- Why are the various scientific communities organized?
