The epistemological status of categorizations based on the residual grounds for the perception of scientific articles by scientists: a case of sensitivity of psychologists and sociologists to symbolic markers

Danila Ivanov

Higher School of Economics

Symbolic derivatives from objective analytical systems act as a residual category of demarcation principles (Gieryn, 1987). In SSK (Bloor, 2005), such symbolic (and generally “social”) factors are explicitly included in the structure of the production of scientific knowledge, thereby influencing and ‘blurring’ the specifics of following the rule of scientific research (Kusch, 2004). However, the status of “non-influences” of social factors is left in the shadow.

One of the experimental studies found that sociologists (Soc) can correctly determine whether the article is sociological or psychological by such scientific symbolic markers (SSM) as the length of the title and references list (Ivanov, Deviatko, 2024 [officially planned]) and thus conclude whether this article is relevant. Psychologists (Psy), in turn, are “blind” to these markers. Does the fact that psychologists are “blind” to such residual symbolic markers mean that the knowledge produced by them is “purer”?

(1) If we see a scientist as a “naive individual” (Bloor, 2005) who is a subject to social factors, (2) then Psy have “purer” scientific knowledge (SK). (3) But Soc prove their integration to scientific discipline (becoming more like “scientists”, but less “scientific”), thus, Psy become more like “people-from-the-street” (as G. Kelly wrote it), since they are also “blind” to the SSM.

(5) Considering (in case of Psy) a “man-from-the-street” as a “scientist” (Kelly, 1970; Lynch, 1993), basing on “2” and “3”, a contradiction appears again, (6) since SK is becomes analytically autonomous (as “6” implies it), and therefore free from the influence of social factors (Lynch, 1993), what contradicts to “1” and leads to a paradox of SSM.

The report will present an extended version of the argument, and fully formulate questions that I would be happy to discuss with the conference participants in order to test the strength of the argument and find ways out of solving the paradox/contradiction that was found.

Chair: Morgan Adou

Time: September 8th, 12:00-12:30

Location: SR 1.004


Posted

in

by