Strong program

The concept arose in the 1970s as one of the alternatives to the sociology of science of R. Merton. It was first presented in the book of D. Blur “Knowledge and social representations” (1976). The term "strong program" itself meant a radical strengthening of the position of sociology compared with the philosophy of science - Bloor argued that knowledge does not exist outside social factors. Therefore, the approach to knowledge, from his point of view, should be precisely sociological, and not psychological - scientific knowledge is the result of the activity of a particular society, and not derived from the universal properties of the psyche. Another feature of the Bloor program is a naturalistic approach: knowledge and ideas must be explained in the same way as natural phenomena ^[1] .

Bloor's approach can be attributed to "sociological relativism." When considering erroneous theories, the sociology of science, before a strong program, emphasized the subjective positions of researchers, their adherents, from the point of view of a scientific methodology, in contrast to true theories for which objective factors were emphasized. A strong program requires that both true and erroneous scientific theories be interpreted in the same way - this is the principle of symmetry . Both in the case of a true scientific theory, and in the case of an erroneous theory, scientific theories are determined by social factors and conditions, such as the cultural context and the personal interests of researchers. Subjective positions taken into account in the framework of a rigorous program include, for example, the political and economic aspects of scientific theories. Any human knowledge - since it is the result of human knowledge - includes in its formation social components (this position is called social constructionism ). By themselves, social factors of cognition do not discredit the cognitive process and its result - scientific knowledge. In his analysis, Bloor proposed replacing the concept of “objectivity” with “intersubjectivity” - an idea dating back to the collective ideas of Emil Durkheim. Intersubjectivity in this case means that the establishment of truth or falsity occurs in science as a result of agreements (conventions) between different social groups ^[1] .

David Blur in the book Knowledge and Social Imagery (1976) formulates four essential components of a rigorous program:

• Causality (causality) - it is necessary to identify the conditions (psychological, social and cultural) that establish the criteria for scientific objectivity and reliability of a certain type of knowledge.
• Impartiality - should be investigated as recognized and ultimately accepted in the scientific community knowledge, and those that were rejected. Impartiality means a radical doubt in one's own ideas (stereotypes) about the structure of the external world. In a sociological analysis, the consequence of this methodological attitude is a distrust of scientists' ideas about their activities.
• Symmetry - the approaches to explaining both accepted and rejected scientific theories must be identical. Proponents of the concept of rigorous theory note the tendency of science historians to explain the success of successful theories by the triumph of objective truth or the advantages of technology and technical knowledge, while researchers more often rely on sociological patterns to explain the emergence and development of errors and false ideas or not widely used technical achievements, consider the influence of political or economic prerequisites. The principle of symmetry as a concept of a rigorous theory is designed to resolve this imbalance in the explanations. You can always distinguish many competing theories and technologies in solving a particular technical or scientific problem. The choice and further predominance of one of them is largely due to social factors. In other words, the explanation of scientific activity in terms of “evidence”, “truth” or “objectivity” should be combined with a directly sociological explanation that considers scientific theories or their creators in a social context.
• Reflexivity - these components should be applied to the analysis of sociology itself, including the sociology of scientific knowledge.

B. Latour (1999) believes that a strong program has had an unprecedented impact on the entire STS field - Science and Technology Studies. Bloor's concept echoes the “social theory of knowledge” of S. Fuller, E. Goldman, one of the varieties of “naturalistic epistemology” that follows the ideas of W. Quine .

A strong program has been criticized for radical relativism in explaining scientific knowledge. Alan Sokal criticized this approach during the “Scientific Wars” that unfolded in the 1990s. Sokal believed that radical relativism inevitably leads to solipsism and postmodernism . Adherents of a strong program, in turn, believed that turning to sociological relativism was purely methodological in nature. Bloor himself believed critics misunderstood relativism, because, from his point of view, modern science is relativistic by definition; relativism is not idealism , irrationalism , singularism or subjectivity .

• Bloor, D. (1991 [1976]), Knowledge and Social Imagery, 2nd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
• Latour, B. (1999) 'For Bloor and Beyond - a reply to David Bloor's' Anti-Latour' Studies in History & Philosophy of Science , v. 30, n. 1, p. 113-129. Archived from the original on September 17, 2012.