Talk:Sociology of knowledge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Sociology of knowledge, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
--- Regarding Sociology of Math - I think we should quantify or add qualifiers to "and much of mathematics has been developed precisely for the goal of developing these models in a rigorous fashion." Might be true for some Western mathematics, certainly Newton, the Bernoulli's, Laplace, Lagrange, but not universally so (Reimman, Hardy, Littlewood, Hilbert, Wiles, ...) Thoughts? The article is Ok (in relation to a lot of other pomobabble-driven nonsense) 209.128.81.201 18:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
---
Should Thomas Sowell's book Knowledge and Decisions be mentioned here? Michael Hardy 21:58 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)
- In a word, no. Sowell is an economist, not a sociologist. Now (pace SLR!) I do not see that as a barrier to his contributing to sociological thought, but if I get the gist of Knowledge and Decisions correctly from the on-line sources I looked over just now, the work (while undoubtedly interesting in its own right) has very little indeed to do with the sociology of knowledge. Tannin 12:26 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)
Why did you remove the bit about the significance of the SofK to sociology as a whole? Tannin
- I'm not sure if you speak to me, but I removed what seemed to me not necessary -- to say, sociology of knowledge influenced more or less all branches of sociology in a way or other seemed a bit inconclusive to me (if that is the word) till we *) 00:43 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)
--- Regarding the Foucault/Mathematics-part. I agree that it's a good idea to mention Foucault. But I find the part of the article rather long (maybe it should become part of an Foucault-article?), and I strongly disagree with the paragraphs about mathematics, which -- besides the links to Foucault -- sound more like (a) some mathematic-in-jokes and (b) cognitive psychology. Maybe my idea of the sociology of knowledge is to narrow (or used in that way only in Germany), but I would reserve "sociology of knowledge" (Wissenssoziologie) for phenomenological/ethnomethodological studies, combined with some french and german classics. A somewhat broader approach -- but still not including the psychology of mathematical thinking ;-) -- is found here: [1]. till we *) 00:43 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the descriptions in this section about the Erdős number are highly inaccurate. The Erdős number applies to all mathematicians, not just those who collaborated with Erdős. The graph in question is the graph of collaborative papers among all mathematicians, not just those involving Erdős. The only way in which Erdős is special to this concept is that he's the highest degree vertex in this graph. --Dbenbenn 05:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
---
Shall we mention Alvin Goldman and John Searle? They have related books Knowledge in a Social World and The Construction of Social Reality. Aknxy 20:22, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Knowledge
Folks, I have just created Knowledge#Sociology of knowledge with a link to here. Would someone like to build the section into a decent piece? Banno 21:40, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Mannheim
I have tried to clear up the bit on Mannheim and relativism. I feel that the previous entry was not objective enough in claiming that relativism was a paradox for Mannheim since it applies a conception of truth which he did not think was viable to him. I have tried to show that elements of his thought are, to me and others, paradoxical nonetheless.
