Scrape wikipedia-science: 1425 new, 1005 updated, 2489 total (kb-cron)

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helga_Nowotny-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+---
+title: "Helga Nowotny"
+chunk: 1/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helga_Nowotny"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:46.378111+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Helga Nowotny (born 9 August 1937) is professor emeritus of Social Studies of Science, ETH Zurich. She has held numerous leadership roles on Academic boards and public policy councils, and she has authored many publications in the social studies of science and technology.
+
+== Early life ==
+Nowotny grew up in Vienna, Austria during World War II. In interviews, she has recalled first wanting to become a scientist at the age of 8, when she was sent to Vorarlberg, the westernmost province of Austria, and quickly learned the local dialect.
+Nowotny received her doctorate of jurisprudence at the University of Vienna in 1959. After completing her degree, she faced opposition to her application for an assistant professorship in the Department of Criminology there on the basis of her being a woman. She agreed with the hiring professor that if a more capable man applied for the position, he could have the job. In the end, she was hired to the position. It was there that she became interested in the sociology of science. In 1965, she moved to New York City with her husband, where she enrolled in a sociology doctoral program. There, she met Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert K. Merton, who mentored her throughout her education.
+In 1969, Nowotny earned her Ph.D. in sociology at Columbia University, New York, where she completed her thesis on macrosociology and its methodology. She returned to Vienna to work as an associate professor at the Institute for Advanced Studies.
+
+== Research and publications ==
+Nowotny's work in the 1970s and 1980s includes topics such as scientific controversies and technological risks, social time, coping with uncertainty, self-organization in science and gender relations in science, resulting in major monographs, co-edited and edited books and numerous articles. In 1989, she published the book Eigenzeit (English title: Time: The Modern and Postmodern Experience), which has since been translated into several languages.
+Between 1992 and 1995 Helga Nowotny has been President of the International Society for the Study of Time. 
+From the 1990s onwards she focused her research activities on new topics in social studies of science and technology. She conducted an empirical study on the discovery of high-superconductivity research and its impact on research policy (with Ulrike Felt) and increasingly on the changing relationship between science and society.
+In 1994 Nowotny helped coin the term “Mode 2” for a new mode of applied research focused on solving specific problems. By contrast, “Mode 1” is basic research done within disciplines, initiated by the interest of the investigator, not from external demand.
+
+== Research policy ==
+
+Next to her teaching and research activities, carried out at several universities and research institutions in Europe, Nowotny had always been intensely engaged in research policy. From 1985 to 1992 she was Chair of the Standing Committee for the Social Sciences of the European Science Foundation. She has been chair and member of the scientific advisory boards of numerous research institutions and policy-related committees throughout Europe. From 2001 until early 2006 she was Chair of EURAB, the European Research Advisory Board of the European Commission.
+Nowotny is one of the founding members of the European Research Council, which has been established to fund frontier research at EU level based on the sole criteria of scientific excellence and pan-European competition. There she served as the Vice President and in February 2010, Nowotny was unanimously elected to the position of President of the European Research Council after the resignation of the founding president, Fotis Kafatos. As president of the ERC, she promoted increases in research funding across Europe, and advised new EU member states to increase funding support for their own research programs to prevent a "brain drain". She held the position until December 2013.
+In 2014, Nowotny was appointed chair of the ERA Council Forum Austria, which advises the Austrian Ministry of Science and Research at the interface of European and national research policy.
+Currently, Nowotny is Chair of the International Advisory Board of the University of Vienna. In 2020, she was appointed by European Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education and Youth Mariya Gabriel to chair an independent search committee for the next president of the ERC.
+
+== Professional positions ==
+In 1981-1982 and 2003-2004 Nowotny was a Fellow at the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin and from 1992 to 1999 Permanent Fellow at Collegium Budapest/Institute of Advanced Study. Before moving to ETH Zurich, she was Professor and Head of the newly founded Institute for Theory and Social Studies of Science of the University of Vienna.
+From 1998 on, Nowotny was Director of the Collegium Helveticum at ETH Zurich. She was the founding director of the post-graduate fellowship programme based at ETH “Society in science: the Branco Weiss Fellowship” until 2004, when she returned to her native Vienna. From 2008 to 2014, Nowotny was a member of the Holberg Committee, which awards the Holberg prize to scholars who have made outstanding contributions to research in the arts and humanities, social sciences, law or theology.
+Nowotny has held teaching and research positions at the Institute of Advanced Study in Vienna, King's College, Cambridge, UK, the University of Bielefeld, the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin and the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris. Nowotny is vice president of the council for the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helga_Nowotny-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+---
+title: "Helga Nowotny"
+chunk: 2/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helga_Nowotny"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:46.378111+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+== Awards and prizes ==
+Nowotny is a Member of Academia Europaea and Foreign Member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences since 2006. Among other honours she has been awarded the J.D. Bernal Prize for her lifelong achievements in social studies of science. In October 2015, she received an honorary doctorate at the University of Bergen. She has also received an honorary doctorate from the Weizmann Institute of Science and the University of Twente. In July 2013, Nowotny was awarded an Honorary Doctorate by Lancaster University, UK.
+In September 2017, she was awarded the President's Medal of the British Academy "for her contribution to the founding and shaping of the European Research Council, and positively influencing the shape of research funding and research policy in the UK and Europe".
+
+== Selected bibliography ==
+
+=== Books ===
+Nowotny, Helga; Mendelsohn, Everett (1984). Nineteen eighty-four: science between utopia and dystopia. Dordrecht Boston Hingham, Massachusetts: D. Reidel Publishg Co. ISBN 9789027717214.
+Nowotny, Helga; et al. (1994). The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. ISBN 9780803977945.
+Nowotny, Helga; Taschwer, Klaus (1996). The sociology of the sciences. Cheltenham, UK Brookfield, Vermont, US: E. Elgar. ISBN 9781852789114. Pdf of book contents.
+Nowotny, Helga; Scott, Peter; Gibbons, Michael (2001). Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity. ISBN 9780745626086.
+Nowotny, Helga (2005). The public nature of science under assault politics, markets, science and the law. Berlin New York: Springer. ISBN 9783540257912.
+Nowotny, Helga (2006). Cultures of technology and the quest for innovation. New York, New York: Berghahn Books. ISBN 9781845451172. Conference details: Cultures of technology and the quest for innovation, Kulturwissenschaftliches Institut (KWI) in Essen, Germany, April 2003.
+Nowotny, Helga (2008). Insatiable curiosity: innovation in a fragile future. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN 9781435654976.
+Nowotny, Helga; Testa, Giuseppe (2010). Naked genes: reinventing the human in the molecular age. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262014939.
+
+=== Journal articles and book chapters ===
+Nowotny, Helga (September 1992). "Time and social theory: towards a social theory of time". Time & Society. 1 (3): 421–454. doi:10.1177/0961463X92001003006. S2CID 145062035.
+Nowotny, Helga (October 1993). "Socially distributed knowledge: five spaces for science to meet the public". Public Understanding of Science. 2 (4): 307–319. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/2/4/002. S2CID 143351946.
+Nowotny, Helga (May 1999). "The place of people in our knowledge". European Review. 7 (2): 247–262. doi:10.1017/S1062798700004026. S2CID 143672549.
+Nowotny, Helga (February 2000). "Transgressive competence: the narrative of expertise". European Journal of Social Theory. 3 (1): 5–21. doi:10.1177/136843100003001001. S2CID 17147844.
+Nowotny, Helga (June 2003). "Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge". Science and Public Policy. 30 (3): 151–156. Bibcode:2003SciPP..30..151N. doi:10.3152/147154303781780461. hdl:20.500.11850/423040.
+Nowotny, Helga (October 2005). "The increase of complexity and its reduction: emergent interfaces between the natural sciences, humanities and social sciences". Theory, Culture & Society. 22 (5): 15–31. doi:10.1177/0263276405057189. S2CID 144901646.
+Nowotny, Helga (2022), "The Quest for Innovation and Cultures of Technology", in Hannes Obermair and Harald Pechlaner (ed.), Eurac Research: Inventing Science in a Region, Bozen-Bolzano: Eurac Research, pp. 195–207, doi:10.57749/a924-n835, ISBN 978-88-6839-628-2.
+
+== References ==
+
+== External links ==
+Personal homepage
+ERC homepage

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obliteration_by_incorporation-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+---
+title: "Obliteration by incorporation"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obliteration_by_incorporation"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:47.617618+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+In sociology of science, obliteration by incorporation (OBI) occurs when at some stage in the development of a science, certain ideas become so universally accepted and commonly used that their contributors are no longer cited. Eventually, its source and creator are forgotten ("obliterated") as the concept enters common knowledge (is "incorporated"). Obliteration occurs when "the sources of an idea, finding or concept, become obliterated by incorporation in canonical knowledge, so that only a few are still aware of their parentage".
+
+
+== Concept ==
+The concept was introduced by Robert K. Merton in 1949, although some incorrectly attribute it to Eugene Garfield, whose work contributed to the popularization of Merton's theory. Merton introduced the concept of "obliteration by incorporation" in the 1968 enlarged edition of his landmark work Social Theory and Social Structure (pp. 28, 35). Merton also introduced the less known counterpart to this concept, adumbrationism, meaning the attribution of insights, ideas or analogies absent from original works.
+In the process of "obliteration by incorporation", both the original idea and the literal formulations of it are forgotten due to prolonged and widespread use, and enter into everyday language (or at least the everyday language of a given academic discipline), no longer being attributed to their creator.
+Thus they become similar to common knowledge. Merton notes that this process is much more common in highly codified fields of natural sciences than in social sciences. It can also lead to ignoring or hiding the early sources of recent ideas under the claims of novelty and originality. Allan Chapman notes that 'obliteration by incorporation' often affects famous individuals, to whom attribution becomes considered as obvious and unnecessary, thus leading to their exclusion from citations, even if they and their ideas have been mentioned in the text. Marianne Ferber and Eugene Garfield concur with Chapman, noting that obliteration often occurs when the citation count and reputation of an affected scientist have already reached levels much higher than average.
+The obliteration phenomenon is a concept in library and information science, referring to the tendency for truly ground-breaking research papers to fail to be cited after the ideas they put forward are fully accepted into the orthodox world view. For example, Albert Einstein's paper on the theory of relativity is rarely cited in modern research papers on physical cosmology, despite its direct relevance.
+
+
+== Examples ==
+Many terms and phrases were so evocative that they quickly suffered the fate of 'obliteration by incorporation'. Examples include:
+
+double helix structure of DNA, introduced by James D. Watson and Francis Crick
+periodic table of elements, introduced by Dmitri Mendeleev
+self-fulfilling prophecy, introduced by Robert K. Merton
+role model, introduced by Robert K. Merton
+deconstruction, introduced by Jacques Derrida
+
+
+== See also ==
+
+Citation analysis
+Genericized trademark
+Law of eponymy: Chicago historian of statistics Stephen M. Stigler has written about a "law of eponymy" whereby "no scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." Examples: America was not discovered by Americus Vespucci, the Gaussian distribution was not discovered by Gauss.
+Matthew effect
+Recuperation (politics)
+
+
+== References ==
+Inline
+
+General
+Robert K. Merton, (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure, enlarged edition. Free Press, New York.
+Robert K. Merton, On Social Structure and Science, University of Chicago Press, 1996, ISBN 0-226-52071-4, Google Print, p.30
+
+
+== Further reading ==
+Garfield, E. 1975 The Obliteration Phenomenon. Current Contents No. 51/52: 5–7,(22 Dec. 1975)
+Messeri P., Obliteration by incorporation: Toward a Problematics, Theory and Metric of the Use of Scientific Literature. Unpublished manuscript. Columbia University, 1978.
+Merton, Robert K. (1993-05-15). On the Shoulders of Giants: The Post-Italianate Edition. University Of Chicago Press. p. 348. ISBN 0-226-52086-2.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_extraterrestrial_life-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+---
+title: "Public opinion on extraterrestrial life"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_extraterrestrial_life"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:48.897019+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Public opinion on extraterrestrial life refers to the collective beliefs, attitudes, and statistical data regarding the existence of extraterrestrial life and extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI). While scientific consensus has historically been cautious, public opinion surveys from the late 20th and early 21st centuries indicate a widespread belief in the existence of intelligent alien civilizations, often exceeding the confidence levels expressed by the scientific community.
+
+
+== Global surveys ==
+Research conducted on an international scale has revealed significant belief in extraterrestrial civilizations across diverse cultures.
+
+Glocalities Study (2017): A survey of 26,492 respondents across 24 countries found that 47% of participants believed in "the existence of intelligent alien civilizations in the universe." The study noted substantial cross-national variation, with belief rates ranging from 45% in the United States to 68% in Russia. The researchers categorized a segment of high-engagement believers as "Homo Universalis," a group characterized by unconventional thinking and high interest in science and politics.
+Western Nations Comparison (2015): A YouGov survey comparing attitudes in the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States found that more than one in two people in all three nations believed living creatures with communication abilities exist outside Earth. Specifically, 56% of Germans, 54% of Americans, and 52% of Britons held this belief.
+
+
+== United States surveys ==
+Public opinion in the United States has been frequently polled, revealing a trend of increasing belief in extraterrestrial phenomena.
+
+Pew Research Center (2021): A study found that 65% of Americans stated their "best guess" was that intelligent life exists on other planets.
+YouGov (2025): A survey conducted in November 2025 indicated that 47% of Americans believe aliens have "definitely or probably visited Earth" at some point in history. Furthermore, 30% of Americans explicitly believe that UFOs are probable alien ships or life forms.
+Political correlation: Data from 2025 suggested a partisan divide, with Democrats being more likely than Republicans to believe UFOs are of alien origin (34% vs. 26%).
+
+
+== Expert vs. public opinion ==
+Recent academic efforts have attempted to quantify the gap between public perception and expert consensus.
+
+Expert Consensus (2025): A survey published in Nature Astronomy by Vickers et al. established that 58.2% of astrobiology experts believe intelligent extraterrestrial life likely exists. This figure provides an empirical baseline against which public opinion can be compared, often revealing that the public underestimates the level of scientific interest in the subject.
+The "Cosmic Closet" Study (2025): Building upon the 2025 expert baseline, a study by Eldadi, Tenenbaum, and Loeb surveyed 6,114 highly educated and scientifically engaged individuals to compare public attitudes against expert opinion. The study revealed a near-universal personal conviction, with 95.01% of respondents believing that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists (and 62.59% holding definitive rather than probable convictions). However, the researchers identified a massive pluralistic ignorance among the public, coined the "cosmic closet," where participants underestimated the prevalence of this belief in their own social circles by 46.07 percentage points. 
+
+
+== Demographic variables ==
+Belief in extraterrestrial life varies significantly across different demographic groups.
+
+
+=== Religion ===
+Surveys indicate a negative correlation between high religious observance and belief in extraterrestrial intelligence.
+
+A 2021 Pew Research Center study found that 85% of self-described atheists and agnostics believe intelligent life exists beyond Earth. In contrast, this figure drops to 57% among U.S. Christians and 40% among white Evangelical Protestants.
+New Religious Movements: The mid-20th century saw the emergence of UFO religions, such as Raëlism and Heaven's Gate, which incorporate extraterrestrial contact into their theological frameworks.
+
+
+=== Education and Age ===
+Student Populations: Surveys of student populations have shown exceptionally high belief rates. A 2019 study of Swedish high school and university students published in the International Journal of Astrobiology found that 90% believed in extraterrestrial life. Similarly, a 2020 survey of university students in Peru reported a 92% belief rate.
+Age: Younger Americans are generally more likely to believe in ETI than older cohorts. In 2015, YouGov found that 59% of 18-24 year olds in Britain believed in aliens, compared to only 45% of those over 60.
+
+
+=== Psychological factors ===
+Research indicates that specific psychological orientations and media habits predict belief in intelligent extraterrestrial life. The 2025 study by Eldadi et al. found that exposure to UFO and UAP content was the strongest positive predictor of personal belief. Conversely, anthropocentrism (the belief that humans are exceptionally special) and institutional trust were strong negative predictors; individuals with lower trust in scientific and government institutions demonstrated a higher likelihood of believing in extraterrestrial intelligence. 
+
+
+== Cultural interest ==
+Public interest in the subject is also measured through digital behavior and media consumption. 
+
+Search Trends: Internet search data often correlates with government disclosure events. For example, the 2023 congressional hearings on UAPs triggered a resurgence of public interest, with lawmakers noting that the "lack of transparency" regarding UAPs has fueled public speculation.
+Documentaries: Media relating to the "ancient astronaut" hypothesis remains popular. The series Ancient Aliens has aired for over 19 seasons, reflecting sustained public curiosity regarding speculative extraterrestrial theories, despite criticism from historians and archaeologists regarding its scientific accuracy.
+
+
+== See also ==
+Search for extraterrestrial intelligence
+Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact
+Fermi paradox
+UFO religion
+
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_In_Society-0.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_In_Society"
 category: "reference"
 tags: "science, encyclopedia"
-date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:34:03.403724+00:00"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:51.368794+00:00"
 instance: "kb-cron"
 ---
 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies-0.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/8
 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies"
 category: "reference"
 tags: "science, encyclopedia"
-date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:58:37.328670+00:00"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:50.105188+00:00"
 instance: "kb-cron"
 ---
 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies-1.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/8
 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies"
 category: "reference"
 tags: "science, encyclopedia"
-date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:58:37.328670+00:00"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:50.105188+00:00"
 instance: "kb-cron"
 ---
 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies-2.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 3/8
 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies"
 category: "reference"
 tags: "science, encyclopedia"
-date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:58:37.328670+00:00"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:50.105188+00:00"
 instance: "kb-cron"
 ---
 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies-3.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 4/8
 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies"
 category: "reference"
 tags: "science, encyclopedia"
-date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:58:37.328670+00:00"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:50.105188+00:00"
 instance: "kb-cron"
 ---
 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies-4.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 5/8
 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies"
 category: "reference"
 tags: "science, encyclopedia"
-date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:58:37.328670+00:00"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:50.105188+00:00"
 instance: "kb-cron"
 ---
 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies-5.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 6/8
 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies"
 category: "reference"
 tags: "science, encyclopedia"
-date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:58:37.328670+00:00"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:50.105188+00:00"
 instance: "kb-cron"
 ---
 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies-6.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 7/8
 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies"
 category: "reference"
 tags: "science, encyclopedia"
-date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:58:37.328670+00:00"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:50.105188+00:00"
 instance: "kb-cron"
 ---
 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies-7.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 8/8
 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies"
 category: "reference"
 tags: "science, encyclopedia"
-date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:58:37.328670+00:00"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:50.105188+00:00"
 instance: "kb-cron"
 ---
 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+---
+title: "Scientific community"
+chunk: 1/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:52.684091+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The scientific community is a diverse network of interacting scientists. It includes many "sub-communities" working on particular scientific fields, and within particular institutions; interdisciplinary and cross-institutional activities are also significant. Objectivity is expected to be achieved by the scientific method. Peer review, through discussion and debate within journals and conferences, assists in this objectivity by maintaining the quality of research methodology and interpretation of results.
+
+== History of scientific communities ==
+
+The eighteenth century had some societies made up of men who studied nature, also known as natural philosophers and natural historians, which included even amateurs. As such these societies were more like local clubs and groups with diverse interests than actual scientific communities, which usually had interests on specialized disciplines. Though there were a few older societies of men who studied nature such as the Royal Society of London, the concept of scientific communities emerged in the second half of the 19th century, not before, because it was in this century that the language of modern science emerged, the professionalization of science occurred, specialized institutions were created, and the specialization of scientific disciplines and fields occurred.
+For instance, the term scientist was first coined by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell in 1834 and the wider acceptance of the term along with the growth of specialized societies allowed for researchers to see themselves as a part of a wider imagined community, similar to the concept of nationhood.
+
+== Membership, status and interactions ==
+
+Membership in the community is generally, but not exclusively, a function of education, employment status, research activity and institutional affiliation. Status within the community is highly correlated with publication record, and also depends on the status within the institution and the status of the institution. Researchers can hold roles of different degrees of influence inside the scientific community. Researchers of a stronger influence can act as mentors for early career researchers and steer the direction of research in the community like agenda setters. 
+Scientists are usually trained in academia through universities. As such, degrees in the relevant scientific sub-disciplines are often considered prerequisites in the relevant community. In particular, the PhD with its research requirements functions as a marker of being an important integrator into the community, though continued membership is dependent on maintaining connections to other researchers through publication, technical contributions, and conferences. After obtaining a PhD an academic scientist may continue through being on an academic position, receiving a post-doctoral fellowships and onto professorships. Other scientists make contributions to the scientific community in alternate ways such as in industry, education, think tanks, or the government.
+Members of the same community do not need to work together. Communication between the members is established by disseminating research work and hypotheses through articles in peer reviewed journals, or by attending conferences where new research is presented and ideas exchanged and discussed. There are also many informal methods of communication of scientific work and results as well. And many in a coherent community may actually not communicate all of their work with one another, for various professional reasons.
+
+== Speaking for the scientific community ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+---
+title: "Scientific community"
+chunk: 2/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:52.684091+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Unlike in previous centuries when the community of scholars were all members of few learned societies and similar institutions, there are no singular bodies or individuals which can be said today to speak for all science or all scientists. This is partly due to the specialized training most scientists receive in very few fields. As a result, many would lack expertise in all the other fields of the sciences. For instance, due to the increasing complexity of information and specialization of scientists, most of the cutting-edge research today is done by well funded groups of scientists, rather than individuals. However, there are still multiple societies and academies in many countries which help consolidate some opinions and research to help guide public discussions on matters of policy and government-funded research. For example, the United States' National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and United Kingdom's Royal Society sometimes act as surrogates when the opinions of the scientific community need to be ascertained by policy makers or the national government, but the statements of the National Academy of Science or the Royal Society are not binding on scientists nor do they necessarily reflect the opinions of every scientist in a given community since membership is often exclusive, their commissions are explicitly focused on serving their governments, and they have never "shown systematic interest in what rank-and-file scientists think about scientific matters". Exclusivity of membership in these types of organizations can be seen in their election processes in which only existing members can officially nominate others for candidacy of membership. It is very unusual for organizations like the National Academy of Science to engage in external research projects since they normally focus on preparing scientific reports for government agencies. An example of how rarely the NAS engages in external and active research can be seen in its struggle to prepare and overcome hurdles, due to its lack of experience in coordinating research grants and major research programs on the environment and health.
+Nevertheless, general scientific consensus is a concept which is often referred to when dealing with questions that can be subject to scientific methodology. While the consensus opinion of the community is not always easy to ascertain or fix due to paradigm shifting, generally the standards and utility of the scientific method have tended to ensure, to some degree, that scientists agree on some general corpus of facts explicated by scientific theory while rejecting some ideas which run counter to this realization. The concept of scientific consensus is very important to science pedagogy, the evaluation of new ideas, and research funding. Sometimes it is argued that there is a closed shop bias within the scientific community toward new ideas. Protoscience, fringe science, and pseudoscience have been topics that discuss demarcation problems. In response to this some non-consensus claims skeptical organizations, not research institutions, have devoted considerable amounts of time and money contesting ideas which run counter to general agreement on a particular topic.
+Philosophers of science argue over the epistemological limits of such a consensus and some, including Thomas Kuhn, have pointed to the existence of scientific revolutions in the history of science as being an important indication that scientific consensus can, at times, be wrong. Nevertheless, the sheer explanatory power of science in its ability to make accurate and precise predictions and aid in the design and engineering of new technology has ensconced "science" and, by proxy, the opinions of the scientific community as a highly respected form of knowledge both in the academy and in popular culture.
+
+=== Political controversies ===
+
+The high regard with which scientific results are held in Western society has caused a number of political controversies over scientific subjects to arise. An alleged conflict thesis proposed in the 19th century between religion and science has been cited by some as representative of a struggle between tradition and substantial change and faith and reason.. A popular example used to support this thesis is when Galileo was tried before the Inquisition concerning the heliocentric model. The persecution began after Pope Urban VIII permitted Galileo to write about the Copernican model. Galileo had used arguments from the Pope and put them in the voice of the simpleton in the work "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" which caused great offense to him. Even though many historians of science have discredited the conflict thesis it still remains a popular belief among many including some scientists. In more recent times, the creation–evolution controversy has resulted in many religious believers in a supernatural creation to challenge some naturalistic assumptions that have been proposed in some of the branches of scientific fields such as evolutionary biology, geology, and astronomy. Although the dichotomy seems to be of a different outlook from a Continental European perspective, it does exist. The Vienna Circle, for instance, had a paramount (i.e. symbolic) influence on the semiotic regime represented by the scientific community in Europe.
+In the decades following World War II, some were convinced that nuclear power would solve the pending energy crisis by providing energy at low cost. This advocacy led to the construction of many nuclear power plants, but was also accompanied by a global political movement opposed to nuclear power due to safety concerns and associations of the technology with nuclear weapons. Mass protests in the United States and Europe during the 1970s and 1980s along with the disasters of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island led to a decline in nuclear power plant construction.
+In the last decades or so, both global warming and stem cells have placed the opinions of the scientific community in the forefront of political debate.
+
+== See also ==
+Academic discipline
+Cudos
+Epistemology
+International community
+Normal science
+Objectivity (philosophy)
+Scientific consensus
+Scientific communication
+Extended peer community
+
+== References ==
+
+Sociologies of science
+Latour, Bruno; Woolgar, Steve (1986) [1979]. Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691094182.
+Traweek, Sharon (1992). Beamtimes and lifetimes: the world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674044449.
+Shapin, Steven; Schaffer, Simon (1985). Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691083933.
+Knorr-Cetina, Karin (1999). Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674258945.
+History and philosophy of science
+Kuhn, Thomas S. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 50th anniversary. Ian Hacking (intro.) (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press. p. 264. ISBN 9780226458113. LCCN 2011042476.
+Alan Chalmers - What is this thing called science
+Other articles
+Haas, Peter M. (Winter 1992). "Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination". International Organization. 46 (1): 1–35. doi:10.1017/S0020818300001442. S2CID 145360263. Pdf.
+Höhle, Ester (2015). From apprentice to agenda-setter: comparative analysis of the influence of contract conditions on roles in the scientific community. Studies in Higher Education 40(8), 1423–1437.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_imperialism-0.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_imperialism"
 category: "reference"
 tags: "science, encyclopedia"
-date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:45:37.416247+00:00"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:53.887234+00:00"
 instance: "kb-cron"
 ---
 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_wager-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+---
+title: "Scientific wager"
+chunk: 1/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_wager"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:55.117975+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+A scientific wager is a wager whose outcome is settled by experiment or observation, following the scientific method. It typically comprises a commitment to pay out when a currently-unknown or uncertain statement is resolved, and either proven or disproved. Some wagers have specific date restrictions for collection, but many are open. Wagers occasionally exert a powerful galvanizing effect on society and the scientific community.
+Notable scientists who have made scientific wagers include Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman. The Stanford Linear Accelerator has an open book containing about 35 wagers in particle physics dating back to 1980; many are still unresolved.
+
+== Notable scientific wagers ==
+There are many examples of scientific wagers from the past two centuries, many related to large-scale questions in science at the time. 
+In 1870, Alfred Russel Wallace bet a flat-Earth theorist named John Hampden that he could prove the flat Earth hypothesis incorrect. The sum staked was £500 (equivalent to £62,000 in 2024). A test involving a stretch of the Old Bedford River, in Norfolk, was agreed on: Wallace measured the curvature of the canal's surface using two markers separated by about 5 km (3 mi) and suspended at equal heights above the water's surface. Using a telescope mounted 5 km from one of the markers, Wallace established that the nearer one appeared to be the higher of the two. An independent referee agreed that this showed the Earth's surface to curve away from the telescope, and so Wallace won his money. However, Hampden never accepted the result and made increasingly unpleasant threats to Wallace. This test is now known as the Bedford Level experiment.
+In 1975, cosmologist Stephen Hawking bet fellow cosmologist Kip Thorne a subscription to Penthouse for Thorne against four years of Private Eye for him that Cygnus X-1 would turn out to not be a black hole. In 1990, Hawking acknowledged that he had lost the bet. Hawking's explanation for his position was that if black holes did not actually exist much of his research would be incorrect, but at least he would have the consolation of winning the bet.
+In 1975, Michael Sipser wagered an ounce of gold with Leonard Adleman that the P versus NP problem would be solved with a proof that P≠NP by the end of the 20th century. Sipser sent Adleman an American Gold Eagle coin in 2000 because the problem remained (and remains) unsolved.
+In 1978, chess International Master David Levy won £1250 (equivalent to £7,800 in 2024) from four artificial intelligence experts by never losing a match to a chess program in a ten-year span from 1968 to 1978.
+In 1980, biologist Paul R. Ehrlich bet economist Julian Lincoln Simon that the price of a portfolio of US$200 (equivalent to $800 in 2025) of each of five mineral commodities (copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten) would rise over the next 10 years. He lost, and paid the amount the total price had declined: $576.07 (equivalent to $1,400 in 2025). See: Simon–Ehrlich wager
+In 1997, Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne made a bet with John Preskill on the ultimate resolution of the apparent contradiction between Hawking radiation resulting in a loss of information, and a requirement of quantum mechanics that information cannot be destroyed. Hawking and Thorne bet that information must be lost in a black hole; Preskill bet that it must not. The formal wager was: "When an initial pure quantum state undergoes gravitational collapse to form a black hole, the final state at the end of black hole evaporation will always be a pure quantum state". The stake was an encyclopaedia of the winner's choice, from which "information can be recovered at will". Hawking conceded the bet in 2004, giving a baseball encyclopaedia to John Preskill. Thorne has not formally conceded. See: Thorne-Hawking-Preskill bet
+In 2000 roughly 40 physicists made a bet about the existence of supersymmetry, to be settled in 2011, but because the Large Hadron Collider was delayed the bet was extended to 2016. As of summer 2016 there had been no signs of superparticles, and the losers delivered "good cognac at a price not less than $100" each to the winners (equivalent to $130 in 2025).
+In 2000, Steven Austad and Jay Olshansky bet US$150 (equivalent to $280 in 2025) each on whether anyone born before 2001 will reach the age of 150. They later increased the bet to $300 (equivalent to $400 in 2025) each. The pot is invested in a fund, and could be worth several hundred million dollars by 2150.
+From 2000 to 2003, scientists placed bets on the number of genes in the human genome in a sweepstakes known as GeneSweep organised by Ewan Birney.
+In 2005, British climate scientist James Annan laid bets with global warming denialists concerning whether future temperatures will increase. Two Russian solar physicists, Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, accepted the wager of US$10,000 (equivalent to $15,000 in 2024) that the average global temperature during 2012–2017 would be lower than during 1998–2003. The bet ended in 2017 with a win to Annan. Mashnich and Bashkirtsev did not honour the bet. Previously, Annan had directly challenged Richard Lindzen. Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years. Annan says that Lindzen wanted odds of 50–1 against falling temperatures. Lindzen, however, says that he asked for 2–1 odds against a temperature rise of over 0.4 °C. Annan and others state they have challenged other denialists to bets over global warming that were not accepted, including Annan's attempt in 2005 to accept a bet that had been offered by Patrick Michaels in 1998 that temperatures would be cooler after ten years.  Annan made a bet in 2011 with astrophysicist David Whitehouse that the Met Office temperature would set a new annual record by the end of the year. Annan was declared to have lost on January 13, 2012.
+In 2005,  The Guardian columnist George Monbiot challenged Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute to a £5,000 bet (equivalent to £8,000 in 2024) of global warming versus global cooling.
+On July 8, 2009, at a FQXi conference in the Azores, Antony Garrett Lisi made a public bet with Frank Wilczek that superparticles would not be detected by July 8, 2015. On August 16, 2016, after agreeing to a one-year delay to allow for more data collection from the Large Hadron Collider, Frank Wilczek conceded the superparticle bet to Lisi.
+In 2012, Stephen Hawking lost $100 (equivalent to $140 in 2025) to Gordon Kane of the University of Michigan because of the Higgs boson discovery.
+Zvi Bern has won many bets connected to quantum gravity. In 2016 David Gross lost a wager about supersymmetry, but he continues to believe in the theory. In 2017, Daniel J. Bernstein made a bet for US$2,048 (equivalent to $2,600 in 2024) with Francisco Rodríguez-Henríquez that quantum computers will publicly break the RSA-2048 factoring challenge no later than 2033. In 2023, John Preuß Mattsson bet $2,050 that the challenge will withstand quantum computing until at least 2050. Daniel J. Bernstein, John Sahhar, Daniel Apon, and Michele Mosca accepted the bet.
+In 2021 Alexander Kusenko lost a $10,000 wager to Derek Muller over the possibility of sailing directly downwind faster than the wind as documented on Muller's channel, Veritasium.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_wager-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+---
+title: "Scientific wager"
+chunk: 2/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_wager"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:55.117975+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+== See also ==
+Long Now Foundation § Long Bet Project
+The efforts of photographer Eadweard Muybridge to capture the motion of a galloping horse were not part of a wager, contrary to popular opinion.
+Pascal's wager is not a wager in the sense used in this article.
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_scientific_ignorance-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+---
+title: "Sociology of scientific ignorance"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_scientific_ignorance"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:56.569358+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The sociology of scientific ignorance (SSI) is the study of ignorance in and of science. The most common way is to see ignorance as something relevant, rather than simply lack of knowledge. There are two distinct areas in which SSI is being studied: some focus on ignorance in scientific research, whereas others focus on public ignorance of science. Sociology of scientific ignorance is a complementary field to the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK).
+When studying ignorance in scientific research, the common standpoint is that ignorance can be used as a tool in science. An example of this is blackboxing, which is the notion that it can be beneficial to hide the internal parts of a system, and only make the input and output visible to the user.
+Studies of public ignorance of science focuses on how scientific ignorance can affect society, the public view of science, and what can give rise to public ignorance of science. This area is related to public understanding of science.
+
+
+== Ignorance in scientific research ==
+Generally, the word ignorance has a negative tone to it, and for a long time scientific ignorance was viewed as a purely negative thing. Recently, however, people have started to abandon this idea, and instead try to find uses of deliberate ignorance.
+This has generally been called useful ignorance. A first step in finding uses of ignorance is realizing that ignorance is inevitable. As Matthias Gross says: "new knowledge also means more ignorance".
+Gross also talks about the connection between ignorance and surprise. Surprise can reveal what scientists are ignorant of, which help them focus their research in order to gain knowledge. On the other hand, ignorance is what gives rise to surprise, making the two very connected.
+
+
+=== Ignorance mobilization ===
+In correspondence with knowledge mobilization, which refers to moving available knowledge into use, a concept of ignorance mobilization has been introduced. "Ignorance mobilization can be understood as the use of
+ignorance towards the achievement of goals."
+This concept also makes a distinction between two types of ignorance: active non-knowledge is ignorance that is intentionally or unintentionally taken into account within science; latent non-knowledge is ignorance that is not taken into account. The latter more resembles the old view of ignorance, as lack of knowledge. Ignorance mobilization can be said to aim to change latent non-knowledge into active non-knowledge, thereby making it useful for further research.
+
+
+=== Specified ignorance ===
+Specified ignorance is the notion of non-knowledge that the scientists are aware of, and must change into knowledge in order to gain knowledge of something else. "The express recognition of what is not yet known but needs to be known in order to lay the foundation for still more knowledge".
+This can help scientist direct their research, in that it shows what pre-studies needs to be done, before doing the main research.
+
+
+== Public ignorance of science ==
+This division of SSI is generally looking at the causes of public ignorance of science, as well as the impact it can have on scientific research and society. One way of categorizing the causes of ignorance uses the following three categories:
+
+Deliberate choice, due to not being interested.
+Division of labour, meaning that it's not relevant to one's job.
+Mental constitution, that is having a non-scientific mind.
+Studies have also been done that focus heavily on the role journalists –  and media in general –  play when it comes to public ignorance of science and common scientific misconceptions. The reason behind journalists spreading false or misleading information can be either because the journalists believe the information to be true, or because of some personal gain for the journalist. A common way to put weight to the journalists' claims is to point to a scientific controversy, or to ignorance within scientific research. Although the latter is unavoidable, by the common view in SSI, this has made scientists more hesitant to discuss their ignorance, since this could be used by media to diminish their work. One area where media is said to have played a prominent role in the public opinion of the matter is that of the global warming controversy.
+
+
+== See also ==
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== Further reading ==
+Gross, Matthias; McGoey, Linsey (2015). Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-71896-7.
+Gigerenzer, Gerd and Garcia-Retamero, Rocio. Cassandra's Regret: The Psychology of Not Wanting to Know (March 2017), Psychological Review, 2017, Vol. 124, No. 2, 179–196. Paper proposes a regret theory of deliberate ignorance.   A summary discussion of the paper on the website of the American Psychological Association (APA).

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_scientific_knowledge-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+---
+title: "Sociology of scientific knowledge"
+chunk: 1/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_scientific_knowledge"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:57.954867+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) is the study of science as a social activity, especially dealing with "the social conditions and effects of science, and with the social structures and processes of scientific activity." The sociology of scientific ignorance (SSI) is complementary to the sociology of scientific knowledge. For comparison, the sociology of knowledge studies the impact of human knowledge and the prevailing ideas on societies and relations between knowledge and the social context within which it arises.
+Sociologists of scientific knowledge study the development of a scientific field and attempt to identify points of contingency or interpretative flexibility where ambiguities are present. Such variations may be linked to a variety of political, historical, cultural or economic factors. Crucially, the field does not set out to promote relativism or to attack the scientific project; the objective of the researcher is to explain why one interpretation rather than another succeeds due to external social and historical circumstances.
+The field emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s and at first was an almost exclusively British practice. Other early centers for the development of the field were in France, Germany, and the United States (notably at Cornell University). Major theorists include Barry Barnes, David Bloor, Sal Restivo, Randall Collins, Gaston Bachelard, Harry Collins, Karin Knorr Cetina, Paul Feyerabend, Steve Fuller, Martin Kusch, Bruno Latour, Mike Mulkay, Derek J. de Solla Price, Lucy Suchman and Anselm Strauss.
+
+== Programmes and schools ==
+The sociology of scientific knowledge emerged in the 1970s in self-conscious opposition to the sociology of science associated with the American Robert K. Merton, generally considered one of the seminal authors in the sociology of science.  Merton's was a kind of "sociology of scientists," which left the cognitive content of science out of sociological account; SSK by contrast aimed at providing sociological explanations of scientific ideas themselves, taking its lead from aspects of the work of Ludwik Fleck, Thomas S. Kuhn, but especially from established traditions in cultural anthropology (Durkheim, Mauss) as well as the late Wittgenstein. David Bloor, one of SSK's early champions, has contrasted the so-called 'weak programme' (or 'program'—either spelling is used) which merely gives social explanations for erroneous beliefs, with what he called the 'strong programme', which considers sociological factors as influencing all beliefs.
+The weak programme is more of a description of an approach than an organised movement. The term is applied to historians, sociologists and philosophers of science who merely cite sociological factors as being responsible for those beliefs that went wrong. Imre Lakatos and (in some moods) Thomas S. Kuhn might be said to adhere to it.  The strong programme is particularly associated with the work of two groups: the 'Edinburgh School' (David Bloor, Barry Barnes, and their colleagues at the Science Studies Unit at the University of Edinburgh) in the 1970s and '80s, and the 'Bath School' (Harry Collins and others at the University of Bath) in the same period. "Edinburgh sociologists" and "Bath sociologists" promoted, respectively, the Strong Programme and Empirical Programme of Relativism (EPOR). Also associated with SSK in the 1980s was discourse analysis as applied to science (associated with Michael Mulkay at the University of York), as well as a concern with issues of reflexivity arising from paradoxes relating to SSK's relativist stance towards science and the status of its own knowledge-claims (Steve Woolgar, Malcolm Ashmore).
+The sociology of scientific knowledge has major international networks through its principal associations, 4S and EASST, with recently established groups in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Latin America. It has made major contributions in recent years to a critical analysis of the biosciences and informatics.
+
+== The sociology of mathematical knowledge ==
+Studies of mathematical practice and quasi-empiricism in mathematics are also rightly part of the sociology of knowledge since they focus on the community of those who practice mathematics.  Since Eugene Wigner raised the issue in 1960 and Hilary Putnam made it more rigorous in 1975, the question of why fields such as physics and mathematics should agree so well has been debated. Proposed solutions point out that the fundamental constituents of mathematical thought, space, form-structure, and number-proportion are also the fundamental constituents of physics. It is also worthwhile to note that physics is more than merely modeling of reality and the objective basis is upon observational demonstration. Another approach is to suggest that there is no deep problem, that the division of human scientific thinking through using words such as 'mathematics' and 'physics' is only useful in their practical everyday function to categorize and distinguish.
+Fundamental contributions to the sociology of mathematical knowledge have been made by Sal Restivo and David Bloor. Restivo draws upon the work of scholars such as Oswald Spengler (The Decline of the West, 1918), Raymond Louis Wilder and Leslie Alvin White, as well as contemporary sociologists of knowledge and science studies scholars. David Bloor draws upon Ludwig Wittgenstein and other contemporary thinkers. They both claim that mathematical knowledge is socially constructed and has irreducible contingent and historical factors woven into it. More recently Paul Ernest has proposed a social constructivist account of mathematical knowledge, drawing on the works of both of these sociologists.
+
+== Criticism ==
+SSK has received criticism from theorists of the actor-network theory (ANT) school of science and technology studies. These theorists criticise SSK for sociological reductionism and a human centered universe. SSK, they say, relies too heavily on human actors and social rules and conventions settling scientific controversies. The debate is discussed in an article titled Epistemological Chicken.
+
+== See also ==
+
+== Notes ==
+
+== References ==
+Kusch, Martin (1998). "Sociology of scientific knowledge – research guide". Retrieved February 23, 2012.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_scientific_knowledge-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+---
+title: "Sociology of scientific knowledge"
+chunk: 2/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_scientific_knowledge"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:35:57.954867+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+== Further reading ==
+Baez, John (2010). "The Bogdanoff Affair".
+Bloor, David (1976) Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge.
+Bloor, David (1999) "Anti-Latour". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A Volume 30, Issue 1, March 1999, Pages 81–112.
+Chu, Dominique (2013), The Science Myth---God, society, the self and what we will never know, ISBN 1782790470
+Collins, H.M. (1975) The seven sexes: A study in the sociology of a phenomenon, or the replication of experiments in physics, Sociology, 9, 205-24.
+Collins, H.M. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.
+Collins, Harry and Steven Yearley. (1992). "Epistemological Chicken" in Science as Practice and Culture,  A. Pickering (ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 301-326.
+Edwards, D., Ashmore, M. & Potter, J. (1995). Death and furniture: The rhetoric, politics, and theology of bottom line arguments against relativism.  History of the Human Sciences, 8, 25-49.
+Fleck, Ludwik (1935). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv [Emergence and development of a scientific fact: Introduction to the study of thinking style and thinking collectives] (in German). Verlagsbuchhandlung, Basel: Schwabe.
+Fleck, Ludwik (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
+Gilbert, G. N. & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora's box: A sociological analysis of scientists' discourse.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
+Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts.  2nd Edition.  Princeton:  Princeton University Press. (not an SSK-book, but has a similar approach to science studies)
+Latour, B. (1987). Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (not an SSK-book, but has a similar approach to science studies)
+Pickering, A. (1984). Constructing Quarks: A sociological history of particle physics.  Chicago; University of Chicago Press.
+Schantz, Richard and Markus Seidel (2011). The Problem of Relativism in the Sociology of (Scientific) Knowledge. Frankfurt: ontos.
+Shapin, S. & Schaffer, S. (1985).  Leviathan and the Air-Pump.  Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
+Williams, R. & Edge, D. (1996). The Social Shaping of Technology. Research Policy, vol. 25, pp. 856–899 [1]
+Willard, Charles Arthur. (1996). Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy, University of Chicago Press.
+Zuckerman, Harriet. (1988). "The sociology of science." In NJ Smelser (Ed.), Handbook of sociology (p. 511–574). London: Sage.
+Jasanoff, S. Markle, G. Pinch T. & Petersen, J. (Eds)(2002), Handbook of science, technology and society, Rev Ed.. London: Sage.
+Other relevant materials
+Becker, Ernest (1968). The structure of evil; an essay on the unification of the science of man. New York: G. Braziller.
+Shapin, Steven (1995). "Here and Everywhere: Sociology of Scientific Knowledge" (PDF). Annual Review of Sociology. 21. Annual Reviews: 289–321. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.001445. S2CID 3395517.
+Historical sociologist Simon Schaffer and Steven Shapin are interviewed on SSK
+The Sociology of Ignorance website featuring the sociology of scientific ignorance
+Strong Programme in Sociology of Knowledge and Actor-Network Theory: The Debate within Science Studies (includes questions posed to David Bloor and Bruno Latour related to their dispute, in Appendix)
+
+== External links ==
+Sociology of Science at PhilPapers