Talk:Sociology of science

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This redirect 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 redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science

This redirect is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the redirect attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles

What a sad article. Aside from being tautological in its description of what science is (which should make any sociologist of science blush), it gives no indication at all of what the study of the sociology of science is about. It features two footnotes, one from a popular press book by an activist and one from a mid-1970s article in the Am. Rev. of Sociology which I suspect is not being described correctly at all. Very sad. --24.147.86.187 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, instead of just complaining I tried to fix it up a little. Best of luck with it. -24.147.86.187 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Scientific_method#Citations has some citations on the collaborative nature of scientific societies which you are welcome to start with in your work on this soc article. --Ancheta Wis 15:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal

I propose that this article be merged within the Sociology article. It's not notable enough and the article isn't expansive enough to be on its own. Beam 23:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but merged with the sociology of scientific knowledge rather than the sociology article.--Tomsega (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge it with sociology of scientific knowledge? That article clearly says "[...] is a self-conscious opposition to the sociology of science associated with the American Robert K. Merton" - so is there a difference or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.65.73 (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sociology of science and the sociology of scientific knowledge are two very different things. Sociology of science primarily looks at sociology of scientists and the organisations they work in. Sociology of Scientific knowledge however is interested in the actual content of scientific theories. So when people like David Bloor and Barry Barnes started writing about SSK they were careful to distinguish their 'strong programme' from the 'weak programme' of people like Robert K. Merton or Karl Mannheim. This merger should be reversed Lee Bunce (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noteablilty

While this article certainly is not of high quality, there is a whole field of study within universities regarding sociology of science, and it is frequently not based within sociology departments. It seems to be a realm onto itself, and with some work, this article can be salvaged. Nealc9999 (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move and merge

There were two sociology of science pages going. As this was only one paragraph long, that paragraph has been added to the sociology of scientific knowledge, and this article has been replaced with a redirect.--Tomsega (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]