 Steve Woolgar |  Donald MacKenzie |  George Udny Yule |  Karl Pearson |
Really this entry could be called Woolgar on MacKenzie on Yule vs. Pearson. Steve Woolgar wrote a critique of a paper published by Donald MacKenzie. MacKenzie's paper was titled Statistical Theory and Social Interests: A Case-Study. In part MacKenzie used an argument between to statistical theorists named George Udny Yule and Karl Pearson to explain how scientists are socially influenced both in their choice of study, their approach to the study, and the conclusions drawn in their study. Woolgar's paper was titled Interests and Explanation in the Social Study of Science.
Just as histories may reflect the perspective of historians as much (or more) as they reflect reality, so to, argues Woolgar, is the case of ‘interests’ defining the scientific ‘acts’ of scientists.
Woolgar uses MacKenzie’s review of the differing statistical theories of Pearce and Yule to make his points, though he eludes to an entire line of “Case Studies of Interests”. Woolgar shares a list of six very specific assumptions or approaches of analysts like MacKenzie who argue in favor of a causal relationship between the interests of a scientist and the eventual acts, or artifacts, produced by them.
Within the assumptions of some case study reviewers there is a belief that scientific action is expressive of concomitant interests. Woolgar argues that in case studies, reviewers such as MacKenzie inevitably make the point that the scientific actions are expressive of these concomitant interests. He (Woolgar) explains that these coexisting phenomena do not necessarily make either causal of the other. He further argues that the interests derived by scientific actions are more likely derived by the interpretation of the analysts themselves.
As an example, Woolgar shows how MacKenzie attributes an interest in furthering the adoption of statistical theories of correlation and regression to the motivating factor of Pearson’s development of the rT and C concepts. Later MacKenzie adds a focus on analogy as a motivating factor (interest) of Pearson. Woolgar essentially asks if piling on interests (motivations) is a way for MacKenzie to give credence to his interests-cause-actions argument. Woolgar shows how those attempting to show a cause-and-effect relationship between interests and acts must first adopt a belief that the interest and the act are independent of each other. He then shows that one could argue as easily that the act brings about the interest as the other way around. This line of thinking risks a certain circularity of thought that questions the linear argument of analysts like MacKenzie. Woolgar also points out that neither interest nor act may be causal of the other.
The idea that an analyst is completely objective in finding the route-cause interests is another of the suppositions Woolgar questions. MacKenzie argues independence of the interests from the acts to be able to assert one causing the other. By documenting a series of acts that form a pattern, the analyst is able to discover the route interest, or so goes the line of thinking. Woolgar argues that any number of potential motivations could explain a pattern of actions so it would be difficult at best to discover the specific motivation(s) if not explicitly documented by the scientist being studied. The person analyzing potential interests are themselves influenced by their own interests as they attempt to pare down the list of candidate motivations.
If Woolgar takes issue with interests leading to acts, he accidentally supports the view by using his argument about analysts‘ interests leading to their acts (their analyses). He himself is attempting to discover motivation of the analysts of motivation. Another weak point of Woolgar’s perspective is in his criticism of MacKenzie’s generalization of supporting documentation by Pearson and Yule by simply stating they each supply more information about their interests in other documents. Woolgar argues that by generalizing these other works, and not giving any idea what the other works are, or even how many of them exist, MacKenzie is attempting to bolster his argument without actually giving evidence.
Just as histories may reflect the perspective of historians as much (or more) as they reflect reality, so to, argues Woolgar, is the case of ‘interests’ defining the scientific ‘acts’ of scientists.
Woolgar uses MacKenzie’s review of the differing statistical theories of Pearce and Yule to make his points, though he eludes to an entire line of “Case Studies of Interests”. Woolgar shares a list of six very specific assumptions or approaches of analysts like MacKenzie who argue in favor of a causal relationship between the interests of a scientist and the eventual acts, or artifacts, produced by them.
Within the assumptions of some case study reviewers there is a belief that scientific action is expressive of concomitant interests. Woolgar argues that in case studies, reviewers such as MacKenzie inevitably make the point that the scientific actions are expressive of these concomitant interests. He (Woolgar) explains that these coexisting phenomena do not necessarily make either causal of the other. He further argues that the interests derived by scientific actions are more likely derived by the interpretation of the analysts themselves.
As an example, Woolgar shows how MacKenzie attributes an interest in furthering the adoption of statistical theories of correlation and regression to the motivating factor of Pearson’s development of the rT and C concepts. Later MacKenzie adds a focus on analogy as a motivating factor (interest) of Pearson. Woolgar essentially asks if piling on interests (motivations) is a way for MacKenzie to give credence to his interests-cause-actions argument. Woolgar shows how those attempting to show a cause-and-effect relationship between interests and acts must first adopt a belief that the interest and the act are independent of each other. He then shows that one could argue as easily that the act brings about the interest as the other way around. This line of thinking risks a certain circularity of thought that questions the linear argument of analysts like MacKenzie. Woolgar also points out that neither interest nor act may be causal of the other.
The idea that an analyst is completely objective in finding the route-cause interests is another of the suppositions Woolgar questions. MacKenzie argues independence of the interests from the acts to be able to assert one causing the other. By documenting a series of acts that form a pattern, the analyst is able to discover the route interest, or so goes the line of thinking. Woolgar argues that any number of potential motivations could explain a pattern of actions so it would be difficult at best to discover the specific motivation(s) if not explicitly documented by the scientist being studied. The person analyzing potential interests are themselves influenced by their own interests as they attempt to pare down the list of candidate motivations.
If Woolgar takes issue with interests leading to acts, he accidentally supports the view by using his argument about analysts‘ interests leading to their acts (their analyses). He himself is attempting to discover motivation of the analysts of motivation. Another weak point of Woolgar’s perspective is in his criticism of MacKenzie’s generalization of supporting documentation by Pearson and Yule by simply stating they each supply more information about their interests in other documents. Woolgar argues that by generalizing these other works, and not giving any idea what the other works are, or even how many of them exist, MacKenzie is attempting to bolster his argument without actually giving evidence.
|
| ||||
RSS Feed