Social Studies of Science

Karl Pearson (1857-1936) is often considered to be the father of the modern discipline of statistics, which emerged from his work in mathematical biology or biometry. Pearson's statistics was, by turn, integrally linked with attempts to establish eugenics as the queen of the social sciences. This paper argues that to understand (i) Pearson's taking to biometry, (ii) biometry's power to yield developments in statistics, and (iii) the association of eugenics with statistics, we must understand Pearson's philosophical and social views, developed before he took to biometry. The closing section of the paper analyzes the ways in which Pearson formed these views in response to the social and intellectual problems posed to him by the conditions of his late-Victorian life. The possibility of explaining the particular pattern of his response in terms of the natural interests of persons occupying his social position is mentioned, as are the difficulties of such an explanatory strategy.

This paper examines the controversy that took place between 1900 and 1914 about how best to measure statistical association. The divergent views of the two sides are examined by means of a study of the work of the major participants in the controversy: Karl Pearson (1857-1936) and George Udny Yule (1871-1951). It is argued that the theorizing and scientific judgments of the two sides embodied different 'cognitive interests': that is to say, differing goals in the development of statistical theory resulted in approaches to the measurement of association that were structured differently. These different cognitive interests arose from the different problem situations of statisticians whose primary commitment was to eugenics research and those who lacked any such strong specific commitment. It is suggested that eugenics embodied the social interests of a specific sector of British society, and not those of other sectors. Thus differing social interests are seen as entering indirectly, through the 'mediation' of eugenics, into this episode in development of statistical theory in Britain.

The concepts of game theory are analyzed to determine their selective usefulness for studying certain types of problems and obtaining certain types of conclusions. It is found that game theory lends itself to perspectives and applications which do not question the assumptions underlying existing structures or institutions in society. The selective usefulness of game theory concepts is reflected in the actual uses and applications of the theory; several examples are given. Furthermore, this selective usefulness is quite compatible with what is known about the origins of game theory. The study of game theory concepts provides a useful example of a perspective on mathematics from which mathematical frameworks, as well as associated concepts, are seen as being value-laden.

The sociology of knowledge can enrich our understanding of history, society, knowledge and belief. However, it can only achieve this if it has a sound epistemological and methodological basis. This paper, by criticizing the views of David Bloor, argues that it would be a mistake to define the sociology of knowledge as the causal explanation of belief. More positively, it attempts to describe the general form which the sociology of knowledge should take, and a methodology by which it might proceed.

This paper represents a preliminary attempt to bring the field of mathematics within the scope of the sociology of science. An analysis is performed to determine whether citations are a rough measure of quality in mathematics. Citations to work published by mathematicians who have been elected to the US National Academy of Sciences are compared with those to the work of a random sample of university-based American mathematicians. The study examines productivity and citation counts, to determine if there is a relationship between a mathematician's age and achievement, and to test the claim that younger mathematicians are more apt to do important work. Finally, this paper explores the difficulties peculiar to the sociological study of mathematics, which account for the reluctance of most sociologists of science to study this field.