Talk:Strong programme

Edinburgh Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Edinburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Edinburgh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EdinburghWikipedia:WikiProject EdinburghTemplate:WikiProject EdinburghEdinburgh articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

The phrase "the strong programme has four indispensable components comes together" doesn't make sense. Could it be changed to say simply "the strong programme has four indispensable components"? Rwclark 04:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making an edit here, but has scientific positivism been unseated and from what prior authority? And does making such a claim hold to NPOV.

I Agree, move to delete? GodHead 01:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. I also expanded the article. Anyone want to take on the criticisms of the strong program?Bryan 13:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Latour should not be confused with the 'strong programme'. He has indeed borrowed from the 'strong programme' but in doing so he has developed an alternative (post-structural) approach toward the study of science and society.

This is correct. See Actor-network theory.Bryan

This article should not be spelt with an Americanised spelling. How do I revert the title of the article to the UK spelling?--Nicholas 12:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard reading . . .[edit]

Very difficult to understand. Can't this be simplified for the layperson? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 07:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have I understood it?[edit]

So they propose that a valid theory is believed to be valid because of social factors? Kind of difficult to support, I'd say... --euyyn 00:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial interpretation?[edit]

Can someone tell me where I have made a mistake in the following, or if indeed I haven't?

The strong programme seems to argue that sociology of science should apply equally to scientific theories or movements, regardless of whether they are later believed to be true or false. That is, it holds that the social behavior of scientists toward a theory can be described entirely based on social factors, such as culture, ideology, or self-interest -- without needing to refer to the empirical truth or falsity of that theory.

However, the intended purpose of science is to create a social process that (ultimately) accepts true theories and rejects false ones. Scientists intend to behave differently towards true and false theories, and the social practices of science are set up to pursue this purpose. (They may serve other purposes as well, such as career or politics, of course.) If the strong programme's claim is true -- if scientists' behavior towards theories does not functionally depend on those theories' truth -- then this means that science is a failed enterprise.

What have I missed? Is this actually what these folks believe? --FOo (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number of scientists have interepreted the "Strong Programme" to mean that sociological-science-studies people believe that there is no objective truth, and that reality is purely a social construct, which has caused some friction and annoyance... AnonMoos (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

an interesting text- critique on Barnes' Strong Program and Latour's ideas- is Alan Sokal's "What the Social Text affair does and does not prove"( slightly condensed version of an essay published in "A House Built on Sand: exposing postmodernist Myths about Science" edited by Noretta Koertge (Oxford University Press, New York-Oxford,1998) pp. 9-22 Avdewall (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

The article reads as if written by a supporter of strong sociology and seems to praise strong sociology while giving little to no attention or credence to its detractors. This appears to be a common theme of one of the article's main contributors, Korektiv who has gone to great pains both here and elsewhere to dismiss critics of strong sociology (and in particular Alan Sokal) as ignorant. At the very least the criticism section should be rewritten and expanded to more fairly represent the views of opponents and the article itself should be changed to take into account the rules in regards to space and balance. 161.109.224.184 (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It does read as if the author of this article doesn't agree with Sokal's point of view. Let's see both sides of the arguments, sources, quotations and all, and let the reader decide for themselves. 86.140.143.217 (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the complexities of the topic, it would be nice if it just defined the strong programme and linked to other discussions that explore the arguments within SSK. No reason to detail it all here too. Rabourn (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This honestly seems to me to be unbiased. In general, it may not be representative of most of American Sociology's perspective on it, but it could be argued that specific perspective is bias. Simply because a majority of a field has a bias against a deviant section of the field, does not mean that a neutral description of said section is bias. Overall, there seems to be no POV issues here. One word perhaps should be revised: "unparalleled." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.135.10.94 (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why the name?[edit]

Why it is called "strong" program? Is it a very strong thing? Or is it named after someone with the last name Strong? Wandering Courier (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, it's a relatively "strong" form of relativism or social construct theory... AnonMoos (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 'strong' programme is so called because it contrasts with the 'weak' programme in the sociology. Roughly, the weak programme says that sociology should only be appealed to to explain 'irrational' beliefs, whereas the strong programme says that the same kinds of explanations should be used explain beliefs regardless of how we might evaluate them. This is basically David Bloor's symmetry thesis. Lee Bunce (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

Call me old-fashioned, call me over the hill, call me pre-modern, call me what you will, but I think a section entitled "history" should have at least one date in it.Kdammers (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]