Editing Scientific method (section)

==Philosophy and discourse==<!--Section set to frame 'usefulness' in order to encourage perspectives that advance discussion; not (just) critique without context. Keep in mind, that 'useful' needs to be the consideration of your source, and not any interpretation of it.-->
{{See also|Philosophy of science|Sociology of scientific knowledge}}
{{anchor|Characterization}}
Philosophy of science looks at [[#polyaFirstUnderstand|the underpinning logic]] of the scientific method, at what separates [[Demarcation problem|science from non-science]], and the [[Research ethics|ethic]] that is implicit in science. There are basic assumptions, derived from philosophy by at least one prominent scientist,{{efn-ua|name= introspection| [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3APopular_Science_Monthly_Volume_12.djvu/300 Never fail to recognize an idea]... .— C. S. Peirce, ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE LOGIC OF SCIENCE, SECOND PAPER. —HOW TO MAKE OUR IDEAS CLEAR. ''Popular Science Monthly'' '''Volume 12''', January 1878, p.286<ref name= How/>}}<ref name=comprehensibility/> that form the base of the scientific method – namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world.<ref name=comprehensibility>Einstein, Albert (1936, 1956) One may say "the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility." From the article "Physics and Reality" (1936), reprinted in ''Out of My Later Years'' (1956). 'It is one of the great realizations of Immanuel Kant that the setting up of a real external world would be senseless without this comprehensibility.'</ref> These assumptions from [[naturalism (philosophy)|methodological naturalism]] form a basis on which science may be grounded. [[Logical positivism|Logical positivist]], [[empiricism|empiricist]], [[falsifiability|falsificationist]], and other theories have criticized these assumptions and given alternative accounts of the logic of science, but each has also itself been criticized.

There are several kinds of modern philosophical conceptualizations and attempts at definitions of the method of science.{{efn-lg|There is no universally agreed upon definition of the method of science. This was expressed with [[Neurath's boat]] already in 1913. There is however a consensus that stating this somewhat nihilistic assertion without introduction and in too unexpected a fashion is counterproductive, confusing, and can even be damaging. There may never be one, too. As [[Steven Weinberg|Weinberg]] described it in 1995:<ref name="Weinberg 1995">Weinberg, (1995) “The Methods of Science … And Those By Which We Live”, page: 8</ref> {{Blockquote|quote=The fact that the standards of scientific success shift with time does not only make the philosophy of science difficult; it also raises problems for the public understanding of science. We do not have a fixed scientific method to rally around and defend.}}}} The one attempted by the ''unificationists'', who argue for the existence of a unified definition that is useful (or at least 'works' in every context of science). The ''pluralists'', arguing degrees of science being too fractured for a universal definition of its method to by useful. And those, who argue that the very attempt at definition is already detrimental to the free flow of ideas.

Additionally, there have been views on the social framework in which science is done, and the impact of the sciences social environment on research. Also, there is 'scientific method' as popularised by Dewey in ''How We Think'' (1910) and Karl Pearson in ''Grammar of Science'' (1892), as used in fairly uncritical manner in education.

=== Pluralism ===
{{Main|Scientific pluralism}}

Scientific pluralism is a position within the [[philosophy of science]] that rejects various proposed [[unity of science|unities]] of scientific method and subject matter. Scientific pluralists hold that science is not unified in one or more of the following ways: the [[metaphysics]] of its subject matter, the [[epistemology]] of scientific knowledge, or the [[research methods]] and models that should be used. Some pluralists believe that pluralism is necessary due to the nature of science. Others say that since [[scientific discipline]]s already vary in practice, there is no reason to believe this variation is wrong until a specific unification is [[empirically]] proven. Finally, some hold that pluralism should be allowed for [[normative]] reasons, even if unity were possible in theory.

=== Unificationism ===
{{Main|Unity of science}}

Unificationism, in science, was a central tenet of [[logical positivism]].<ref name="Neurath† Bonk 2011">{{cite book | last1=Neurath† | first1=Otto | author1-link=Otto Neurath| last2=Bonk | first2=Thomas | title=Otto Neurath and the Unity of Science | chapter=Unity of Science and Logical Empiricism: A Reply | publisher=Springer Netherlands | publication-place=Dordrecht | date=2011 | isbn=978-94-007-0142-7 | doi=10.1007/978-94-007-0143-4_2 | pages=15–30}}</ref><ref name="McGill 1937">{{cite journal | last=McGill | first=V. J. | title=Logical Positivism and the Unity of Science | journal=Science & Society | publisher=Guilford Press | volume=1 | issue=4 | year=1937 | issn=0036-8237 | jstor=40399117 | pages=550–561 }}</ref> Different logical positivists construed this doctrine in several different ways, e.g. as a [[reductionism|reductionist]] thesis, that the objects investigated by the [[special sciences]] reduce to the objects of a common, putatively more basic domain of science, usually thought to be physics; as the thesis that all theories and results of the various sciences can or ought to be expressed in a common language or "universal slang"; or as the thesis that all the special sciences share a common scientific method.{{efn|name=unifiedMethod|1= The topics of study, as expressed in the vocabulary of its scientists, are approached by a "single unified method".<ref name= cowles />{{rp|pp.8,13,33–35,60}} A topic is [[Unification of theories in physics|unified]] by its [[Predicate variable|predicate]]s, which describe a [[system]] of mathematical [[Expression (mathematics)|expression]]s.<ref name=Knight1989 >Kevin Knight (1989) [https://kevincrawfordknight.github.io/papers/unification-knight.pdf Unification: A Multidisciplinary Survey] ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 21, No. 1, March 1989</ref>{{rp|93–94,113–117}} The values which a [[Predicate (mathematical logic)|predicate]] might take, then serve as [[Witness (mathematics)|witness]] to the validity of a predicated expression (that is, ''true'' or ''false''; 'predicted but not yet observed'; 'corroborates', etc.).}}

Development of the idea has been troubled by accelerated advancement in technology that has opened up many new ways to look at the world.

{{Blockquote|quote=The fact that the standards of scientific success shift with time does not only make the philosophy of science difficult; it also raises problems for the public understanding of science. We do not have a fixed scientific method to rally around and defend. 
|source=[[Steven Weinberg]], 1995<ref name="Weinberg 1995" />}}

=== Epistemological anarchism ===
{{Main|Epistemological anarchism}}

{{anchor|noMethod}}[[Paul Feyerabend]] examined the history of science, and was led to deny that science is genuinely a methodological process. In his 1975 book ''[[Against Method]]'' he argued that no description of scientific method [[#critiquesOfFeyerabend|could possibly be broad enough]] to include all the approaches and methods used by scientists, and that there are no useful and exception-free [[methodology|methodological rules]] governing the progress of science. In essence, he said that for any specific method or norm of science, one can find a historic episode where violating it has contributed to the progress of science. He jokingly suggested that, if believers in the scientific method wish to express a single universally valid rule, it should be '[[#theTermSci|anything goes]]'.<ref>[[Paul Feyerabend|Feyerabend, Paul K.]], ''Against Method, Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge'', 1st published, 1975. Reprinted, Verso, London, 1978.
</ref> As has been argued before him however, this is uneconomic; [[Problem solving|problem solver]]s, and researchers are to be prudent with their resources during their inquiry.{{efn-ua|name= FRL-1.136 |{{harvp|Peirce|1899}} First rule of logic (F.R.L)<ref name= reasonsFirstRule /> Paragraph 1.136: From the first rule of logic, if we truly desire the goal of the inquiry we are not to waste our resources.<ref name=econ/><ref name= SuitableTest/> — [[Terence Tao]] wrote on the matter that not all approaches can be regarded as "equally suitable and deserving of equal resources" because such positions would "sap mathematics of its sense of direction and purpose".<ref name= taoTime >{{cite journal | last=Tao | first=Terence | title=What is good mathematics? |url=https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/2007-44-04/S0273-0979-07-01168-8/S0273-0979-07-01168-8.pdf |journal=Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society |series=New Series |volume=44 |issue=4 |date=October 2007 |pages=623–634  | doi=10.1090/S0273-0979-07-01168-8 | arxiv=math/0702396 }}</ref>}}

A more general inference against formalised method has been found through research involving interviews with scientists regarding their conception of method. This research indicated that scientists frequently encounter difficulty in determining whether the available evidence supports their hypotheses. This reveals that there are no straightforward mappings between overarching methodological concepts and precise strategies to direct the conduct of research.<ref name="Schickore Hangel 2019">{{cite journal | last1=Schickore | first1=Jutta | last2=Hangel | first2=Nora | title="It might be this, it should be that…" uncertainty and doubt in day-to-day research practice | journal=European Journal for Philosophy of Science | volume=9 | issue=2 | date=2019 | issn=1879-4912 | doi=10.1007/s13194-019-0253-9 | page=}}</ref>

=== Education ===
{{See also|Philosophy of education|Scientific literacy}}

In [[science education]], the idea of a general and universal scientific method has been notably influential, and numerous studies (in the US) have shown that this framing of method often forms part of both students’ and teachers’ conception of science.<ref name="Aikenhead 1987 pp. 459–487">{{cite journal | last=Aikenhead | first=Glen S. | title=High-school graduates' beliefs about science-technology-society. III. Characteristics and limitations of scientific knowledge | journal=Science Education | volume=71 | issue=4 | date=1987 | issn=0036-8326 | doi=10.1002/sce.3730710402 | pages=459–487| bibcode=1987SciEd..71..459A }}</ref><ref name="Osborne Simon Collins 2003 pp. 1049–1079">{{cite journal | last1=Osborne | first1=Jonathan | last2=Simon | first2=Shirley | last3=Collins | first3=Sue | title=Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications | journal=International Journal of Science Education | volume=25 | issue=9 | date=2003 | issn=0950-0693 | doi=10.1080/0950069032000032199 | pages=1049–1079| bibcode=2003IJSEd..25.1049O }}</ref> This convention of traditional education has been argued against by scientists, as there is a consensus that educations' sequential elements and unified view of scientific method do not reflect how scientists actually work.<ref name="Bauer 1992 p.">{{cite book | last=Bauer | first=Henry H. | title=Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method | publisher=University of Illinois Press | date=1992 | isbn=978-0-252-06436-4 | page=}}</ref><ref name="McComas 1996 pp. 10–16">{{cite journal | last=McComas | first=William F. | title=Ten Myths of Science: Reexamining What We Think We Know About the Nature of Science | journal=School Science and Mathematics | volume=96 | issue=1 | date=1996 | issn=0036-6803 | doi=10.1111/j.1949-8594.1996.tb10205.x | pages=10–16}}</ref><ref name="Wivagg 2002 pp. 645–646">{{cite journal | last=Wivagg | first=Dan | title=The Dogma of "The" Scientific Method | journal=The American Biology Teacher | volume=64 | issue=9 | date=2002-11-01 | issn=0002-7685 | doi=10.2307/4451400 | pages=645–646| jstor=4451400 }}</ref> Major organizations of scientists such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) consider the sciences to be a part of the liberal arts traditions of learning and proper understating of science includes understanding of philosophy and history, not just science in isolation.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Gauch |first1=Hugh G. |title=Scientific Method in Brief |date=2012 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=New York |isbn=9781107666726 |pages=7–10}}</ref>

How the sciences make knowledge has been taught in the context of "the" scientific method (singular) since the early 20th century. Various systems of education, including but not limited to the US, have taught the method of science as a process or procedure, structured as a definitive series of steps:{{refn | Traditionally 5, after Dewey's 1910 idea of a "complete act of thought". He held that thought-process best represented science (for education).<ref name="Rudolph2005">{{cite journal | last=Rudolph | first=John L. | title=Epistemology for the Masses: The Origins of "The Scientific Method" in American Schools | journal=History of Education Quarterly | publisher=[History of Education Society, Wiley] | volume=45 | issue=3 | year=2005 | issn=0018-2680 | jstor=20461985 | pages=341–376, quote on 366 | doi=10.1111/j.1748-5959.2005.tb00039.x | quote=In chapter six, Dewey analyzed what he called a "complete act of thought." Any such act, he wrote, consisted of the following five "logically distinct" steps: "(i) a felt difficulty; (ii) its location and definition; (iii) suggestion of possible solution; (iv) development by reasoning of the bearings of the suggestion; [and] (v) further observation and experiment leading to its acceptance or rejection."}}</ref> These steps would end up being simplified and adjusted, often shortened to 4,<ref name="SpieceColosi2000"/> or extended to include various practices.<ref name="SchusterPowers2005"/>}} observation, hypothesis, prediction, experiment.

This version of the method of science has been a long-established standard in primary and secondary education, as well as the biomedical sciences.{{refn | Specifically, the scientific method has featured in introductory science courses for biology,<ref name="SpieceColosi2000">{{cite journal | last1=Spiece | first1=Kelly R. | last2=Colosi | first2=Joseph | title=Redefining the "Scientific Method" | journal=The American Biology Teacher | volume=62 | issue=1 | date=1 January 2000 | issn=0002-7685 | jstor=4450823 | doi=10.2307/4450823 | pages=32–40}}</ref> medicine,<ref name="SchusterPowers2005">{{cite book | last1=Schuster | first1=D.P. | last2=Powers | first2=W.J. | title=Translational and Experimental Clinical Research | publisher=Lippincott Williams & Wilkins | year=2005 | isbn=978-0-7817-5565-8 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=C7pZftbI0ZMC&pg=PA3 | access-date=20 May 2024 | page=4}} Schuster & Powers hold that sources for research questions are: attempts to explain the cause of novel observations, verifying the predictions of existing theory, literature sources, and technology.</ref> and psychology.<ref name="StangorWalinga2014">{{cite book | last1=Stangor | first1=Charles | last2=Walinga | first2=Jennifer | author3=BC Open Textbook Project | author4=BCcampus | title=Introduction to psychology | publisher=BCcampus, BC Open Textbook Project | publication-place=[Victoria] | year=2014 | isbn=978-1-77420-005-6 | oclc=1014457300 | url=https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontopsychology/chapter/2-1-psychologists-use-the-scientific-method-to-guide-their-research/}}</ref> Also, in education in general.}} It has long been held to be an inaccurate idealisation of how some scientific inquiries are structured.<ref name="Rudolph2005"/>

The taught presentation of science had to defend demerits such as:<ref name="Emden2021">{{cite journal | last=Emden | first=Markus | title=Reintroducing "the" Scientific Method to Introduce Scientific Inquiry in Schools?: A Cautioning Plea Not to Throw Out the Baby with the Bathwater | journal=Science & Education | volume=30 | issue=5 | date=2021 | issn=0926-7220 | doi=10.1007/s11191-021-00235-w | pages=1037–1039| doi-access=free }}</ref>

* it pays no regard to the social context of science,
* it suggests a singular methodology of deriving knowledge,
* it overemphasises experimentation,
* it oversimplifies science, giving the impression that following a scientific process automatically leads to knowledge,
* it gives the illusion of determination; that questions necessarily lead to some kind of answers and answers are preceded by (specific) questions,
* and, it holds that scientific theories arise from observed phenomena only.<ref name="BrownKumar2013">{{cite journal | last1=Brown | first1=Ronald A. | last2=Kumar | first2=Alok | title=The Scientific Method: Reality or Myth? | journal=Journal of College Science Teaching | publisher=National Science Teachers Association | volume=42 | issue=4 | year=2013 | issn=0047-231X | jstor=43631913 | pages=10–11}}</ref>

The scientific method no longer features in the standards for US education of 2013 ([[Next Generation Science Standards|NGSS]]) that replaced those of 1996 ([[National Science Education Standards|NRC]]). They, too, influenced international science education,<ref name="Emden2021"/> and the standards measured for have shifted since from the singular hypothesis-testing method to a broader conception of scientific methods.<ref name="IoannidouErduran2021">{{cite journal | last1=Ioannidou | first1=Olga | last2=Erduran | first2=Sibel | title=Beyond Hypothesis Testing: Investigating the Diversity of Scientific Methods in Science Teachers' Understanding | journal=Science & Education | volume=30 | issue=2 | date=2021 | issn=0926-7220 | pmid=34720429 | pmc=8550242 | doi=10.1007/s11191-020-00185-9 | pages=345–364}}</ref> These scientific methods, which are rooted in scientific practices and not epistemology, are described as the 3 ''dimensions'' of scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts (interdisciplinary ideas), and disciplinary core ideas.<ref name="Emden2021"/>

The scientific method, as a result of simplified and universal explanations, is often held to have reached a kind of mythological status; as a tool for communication or, at best, an idealisation.<ref name="Thurs2015"/><ref name="McComas 1996 pp. 10–16"/> Education's approach was heavily influenced by John Dewey's, ''[[How We Think]] (1910)''.<ref name="cowles" /> Van der Ploeg (2016) indicated that Dewey's views on education had long been used to further an idea of citizen education removed from "sound education", claiming that references to Dewey in such arguments were undue interpretations (of Dewey).<ref name="van der Ploeg 2016 pp. 145–159">{{cite journal | last=van der Ploeg | first=Piet | title=Dewey versus 'Dewey' on democracy and education | journal=Education, Citizenship and Social Justice | publisher=SAGE Publications | volume=11 | issue=2 | date=8 June 2016 | issn=1746-1979 | doi=10.1177/1746197916648283 | pages=145–159| url=https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/44567891/1746197916648283.pdf }}</ref>

===Sociology of knowledge===
{{Main|Sociology of scientific knowledge}}

The sociology of knowledge is a concept in the discussion around scientific method, claiming the underlying method of science to be sociological. King explains that sociology distinguishes here between the system of ideas that govern the sciences through an inner logic, and the social system in which those ideas arise.{{efn-lg|"The sociology of knowledge is concerned with "the relationship between human thought and the social context in which it arises."<ref>Here, King quotes [[Peter L. Berger]] and [[Thomas Luckmann|Thomas Luckman]], ''[[The Social Construction of Reality]]'' (London, 1967), 16.</ref> So, on this reading, the sociology of science may be taken to be considered with the analysis of the social context of scientific thought. But scientific thought, most sociologists concede, is distinguished from other modes of thought precisely by virtue of its immunity from social determination — insofar as it is governed by reason rather than by tradition, and insofar as it is rational it escapes determination by "non-logical" social forces." — M. D. King leading into his article on ''Reason, tradition, and the progressiveness of science (1971)''<ref name="King_JA1971">{{cite journal | last=King | first=M. D. | title=Reason, Tradition, and the Progressiveness of Science | journal=History and Theory | publisher=[Wesleyan University, Wiley] | volume=10 | issue=1 | year=1971 | issn=1468-2303 | jstor=2504396 | doi=10.2307/2504396 | pages=3–32}}</ref>}}{{efn-lr|name=Tanqih |1= {{harvp|Sabra|2007}} recounts how [[Kamāl al-Dīn al-Fārisī]] came by his manuscript copy of [[Alhacen]]'s ''[[Book of Optics]]'', which by then was some two centuries old: al-Fārisī's project was to write an advanced optics treatise, but he could not understand optical [[refraction]] using his best resources. His mentor, [[Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi]] recalled having seen Alhacen's manuscript as a youth, and arranged to get al-Fārisī a copy "from a distant country". al-Fārisī is now remembered for his Commentary on Alhacen's ''Book of Optics'' in which he found a satisfactory explanation for the phenomenon of the [[rainbow]]: light rays from the sun are doubly refracted within the raindrops in the air, back to the observer.<ref>{{cite web
 | author1=O'Connor, J. J. |author2=Robertson, E. F. | date=November 1999
 | url=http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Al-Farisi.html
 | title=Kamal al-Din Abu'l Hasan Muhammad Al-Farisi
 | publisher=University of St. Andrews | access-date=2007-06-07 }}</ref> Refraction of the colors from the sun's light then forms the spread of colors in the rainbow.}}

====Thought collectives====

A perhaps accessible lead into what is claimed is [[Ludwik Fleck|Fleck's]] thought, echoed in [[Thomas Kuhn|Kuhn's]] concept of [[normal science]]. According to Fleck, scientists' work is based on a thought-style, that cannot be rationally reconstructed. It gets instilled through the experience of learning, and science is then advanced based on a tradition of shared assumptions held by what he called [[Thought collective|''thought collectives'']]. Fleck also claims this phenomenon to be largely invisible to members of the group.<ref name="Fleck_comp_w/Kuhn">{{cite journal|last=Harwood | first=Jonathan | title=Ludwik Fleck and the Sociology of Knowledge | journal=Social Studies of Science | volume=16 | number=1 | date=1986 | pages=173–187 | doi=10.1177/030631286016001009 | jstor=285293}}</ref>

Comparably, following the [[field research]] in an academic scientific laboratory by [[Bruno Latour|Latour]] and [[Steve Woolgar|Woolgar]], [[Karin Knorr Cetina]] has conducted a comparative study of two scientific fields (namely [[Particle physics|high energy physics]] and [[molecular biology]]) to conclude that the epistemic practices and reasonings within both scientific communities are different enough to introduce the concept of "[[epistemic cultures]]", in contradiction with the idea that a so-called "scientific method" is unique and a unifying concept.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge|last=Knorr-Cetina |first=K. |date=1999|publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0-674-25893-8|location=Cambridge, Mass.|oclc=39539508}}</ref>{{efn|Comparing 'epistemic cultures' with Fleck 1935, [[Thought collective]]s, (''denkkollektiven''): ''Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einfǖhrung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv''<ref>As cited in {{harvp|Fleck|1979|p=27}}, {{harvp|Fleck|1979|pp=38–50}}</ref> {{harvp|Fleck|1979|p=xxvii}} recognizes that [[#genesisOfScientificFact|facts have lifetimes]], flourishing only after incubation periods. His selected question for investigation (1934) was "[[Thought collective#predicateIsNotStatement|HOW, THEN, DID THIS EMPIRICAL FACT ORIGINATE]] AND IN WHAT DOES IT CONSIST?".<ref>{{harvp|Fleck|1979|p=xxviii}}</ref> But by [[#genesisOfScientificFact|Fleck 1979, p.27]], the thought collectives within the respective fields will have to settle on common specialized terminology, publish their results and further intercommunicate with their colleagues using the common terminology, in order to progress.<ref>{{harvp|Fleck | 1979|p=27}}</ref>
{{see also|Cognitive revolution|Perceptual control theory#The methodology of modeling, and PCT as model}}}}

====Situated cognition and relativism====
{{See also|Postpositivism|Relativism}}

On the idea of Fleck's ''thought collectives'' sociologists built the concept of [[situated cognition]]: that the perspective of the researcher fundamentally affects their work; and, too, more radical views.

[[Norwood Russell Hanson]], alongside [[Thomas Kuhn]] and [[Paul Feyerabend]], extensively explored the theory-laden nature of observation in science. Hanson introduced the concept in 1958, emphasizing that observation is influenced by the [[Situated cognition|observer's conceptual framework]]. He used the concept of [[gestalt psychology|gestalt]] to show how preconceptions can affect both observation and description, and illustrated this with examples like the initial rejection of [[Golgi apparatus|Golgi bodies]] as an artefact of staining technique, and the differing interpretations of the same sunrise by Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler. [[Intersubjectivity]] led to different conclusions.<ref name="Hanson1958">{{Citation
|last=Hanson
|first=Norwood
|title=Patterns of Discovery
|year=1958
|publisher=Cambridge University Press
|isbn=978-0-521-05197-2
}}</ref>{{efn|name= Kepler1604 }}

Kuhn and Feyerabend acknowledged Hanson's pioneering work,<ref>{{cite book |last=Kuhn |first=Thomas S. |title=The Structure of Scientific Revolutions |publisher=University of Chicago Press |location=Chicago, IL |year=2009 |isbn=978-1-4432-5544-8 |page=113 |title-link=The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}}<!--ISBN matches 2009 publication, not the 1962.-->
</ref><ref>Feyerabend, Paul K (1960) "Patterns of Discovery" The Philosophical Review (1960) vol. 69 (2) pp. 247–252</ref> although Feyerabend's views on methodological pluralism were more radical. Criticisms like those from Kuhn and Feyerabend prompted discussions leading to the development of the [[strong programme]], a sociological approach that seeks to explain scientific knowledge without recourse to the truth or validity of scientific theories. It examines how scientific beliefs are shaped by social factors such as power, ideology, and interests.

The [[postmodernism|postmodernist]] critiques of science have themselves been the subject of intense controversy. This ongoing debate, known as the [[science wars]], is the result of conflicting values and assumptions between [[postmodernist]] and [[scientific realism|realist]] perspectives. Postmodernists argue that scientific knowledge is merely a discourse, devoid of any claim to fundamental truth. In contrast, realists within the scientific community maintain that science uncovers real and fundamental truths about reality. Many books have been written by scientists which take on this problem and challenge the assertions of the postmodernists while defending science as a legitimate way of deriving truth.<ref>For example:
* ''Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science'', The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997
* ''Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science'', Picador. 1999
* ''The Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy'', University of Nebraska Press, 2000 {{ISBN|0-8032-7995-7}}
* ''A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science'', Oxford University Press, 2000
* ''Intellectual Impostures'', Economist Books, 2003</ref>