Sloppy science studies

It seems to me that much sloppy thinking in Science Studies involves conflating two or more of the following levels of analysis:

Ontology. What objects exist in the world? What statements about these objects are true?
Epistemology. How can human beings obtain knowledge of truths about the world? How can they assess the reliability of that knowledge?
Sociology of knowledge. To what extent are the truths known (or knowable) by humans in any given society influenced (or determined) by social, economic, political, cultural, and ideological factors? Same question for the false statements erroneously believed to be true.
Individual ethics. What types of research ought a scientist (or technologist) to undertake (or refuse to undertake)?
Social ethics. What types of research ought society to encourage, subsidize, or publicly fund (or, alternatively, to discourage, tax, or forbid)?

These questions are obviously related--for example, if there are no objective truths about the world, then there isn't much point in asking how one can know those (nonexistent) truths--but they are conceptually distinct.

Let me give you a for example. Sandra Harding (citing the work of Paul Forman) points out that American research in the 1940s and 1950s on quantum electronics was motivated in large part by potential military applications. True enough. Now, quantum mechanics made possible solid-state physics, which in turn made possible quantum electronics (e.g., the transistor), which made possible nearly all modern technology (e.g., the computer). And the computer has had applications that are beneficial to society (e.g., by allowing the postmodern cultural critic to produce her articles more efficiently) as well as applications that are harmful (e.g., by allowing the U.S. military to kill human beings more efficiently). This raises a host of social and individual ethical questions: ought society to forbid (or discourage) certain applications of computers? Forbid (or discourage) research on computers per se? Forbid (or discourage) research on quantum electronics? On solid-state physics? On quantum mechanics? And likewise for individual scientists and technologists. (Clearly, an affirmative answer to these questions becomes harder to justify as one goes down the list, but I do not want to declare any of these questions a priori illegitimate.)

Sociological questions also arise: To what extent is our (true) knowledge of computer science, quantum electronics, solid-state physics, and quantum mechanics--and our lack of knowledge about other scientific subjects, for example, the global climate--a result of public-policy choices that favor militarism? To what extent have the erroneous theories (if any) in computer science, quantum electronics, solid-state physics, and quantum mechanics been the result (in whole or in part) of social, economic, political, cultural, and ideological factors, in particular the culture of militarism? These all are serious questions, which deserve careful investigation adhering to the highest standards of scientific and historical evidence. But they have no effect whatsoever on the underlying scientific questions: whether atoms (and silicon crystals, transistors, and computers) really do behave according to the laws of quantum mechanics (and solid-state physics, quantum electronics, and computer science). The militaristic orientation of American science has, quite simply, no bearing whatsoever on the ontological question, and only under a wildly implausible scenario could it have any bearing on the epistemological question (e.g., if the worldwide community of solid-state physicists, following what they believe to be the conventional standards of scientific evidence, were to hastily accept an erroneous theory of semiconductor behavior because of their enthusiasm for the breakthrough in military technology that this theory would make possible).

Sandra Harding, Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives ( Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991), chap. 4.

Paul Forman, "Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940-1960," Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 18 ( 1987): 149-229.

[Gabriel]

This may seem irrelevant but what is your personal philosophical (or spiritual I suppose) ideology? I mean you seem kind of in no-man's land with it all and are just putting this debate on the table for others. And I mean obviously no one will agree with everyone elses answers, and people have been attempting to answer those questions for centuries. I mean. Even if you look at existentialism, you'll see people have no idea what they are really talking about. They just expect the truth or 'right' answer to pop out by someone someday. I mean, we debate what's even REAL, what exists, what constitutes as existence? I mean if you don't know that, then what would constitute as something being right or how we obtain knowledge or what should be taught? We're running in circles about it all. And what's right to someone may be wrong to someone else. Is there universal moral standards? Universal ethics? Should we follow one specific philosopher like Plato?

But the problem with doing that is that the world is always changing and being shaped. And it's a lot different from the time of Plato, Aristotle, or hell, even Friedrich Nietzsche. All great philosopher's with interesting perspectives, but we can't stick to them since what they say becomes 'out dated' essentially.

Or is morals non-changing? Does it just exist and always keep a set standard? Same can be asked about ethics.

In my opinion you should study all of the philosopher's and great theologians teachings and then come to your own conclusion about everything and do what you think is right in your heart. And once you can do that, I think you have lived a good life. Though. This idea isn't universal either. But that's alright.

[Dissident Union]

I'm 100% positive Essayist attempts to occupy a middle ground. I highly doubt he was trying to please anyone, but if this is the case then he's certainly too pessimistic, for there's at least one counterexample: his essay pleases me. Indeed, I agree with nearly everything in it.

Now, perhaps this means only that I too--arrogant scientist though I may be am one of those select few occupying the "middle ground." But I suspect that more of us occupy the "middle ground" in this debate than might at first appear. The point, of course, isn't to embrace "middle ground" (whatever that may be) abstractly and for its own sake, without regard to its content; that would be a grave dereliction of intellectual duty. But here the middle ground as set forth--based on a respect for both the "realist-rationalist cluster" and the "socio-historical cluster," even as we may debate their relative importance in specific cases--is so eminently sensible that nearly all scientists and philosophers of science would give their assent, as would most (though apparently not all) sociologists of science. And this fact might give us some cause for reflection about the so-called--and I think grossly misnamed--science wars.

Originally Posted by Andrew Ross, Social Text coeditor

the Science Wars [are] a second front opened up by conservatives cheered by the successes of their legions in the holy Culture Wars. Seeking explanations for their loss of standing in the public eye and the decline in funding from the public purse, conservatives in science have joined the backlash against the (new) usual suspects--pinkos, feminists, and multiculturalists.

This theme was further elaborated in the now-famous special issue of Social Text. (Social Text, for those of you who don't know, is a postmodernist journal aimed primarily at the social sciences.) But just as in the dreary "culture wars," the truth is rather more complicated than this Manichean portrayal allows. The alleged one-to-one correspondence between epistemological and political views is a gross misrepresentation. So, too, is the idea that in this debate there are only two positions.

[Western_Samurai]

The wisest of all men knows only that he knows nothing.
-Socrates