Editing Science wars

{{Short description|1990s dispute in philosophy of science}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2023}}

In the [[philosophy of science]], the '''science wars''' were a series of scholarly and public discussions in the 1990s over the social place of [[science]] in making authoritative claims about the world.
[[Encyclopedia.com]], citing the ''Encyclopedia of Science and Religion'', describes the science wars as the
:"complex of discussions about the way the sciences are related to or incarnated in culture, history, and practice. [...] [which] came to be called a 'war' in the mid 1990s because of a strong polarization over questions of legitimacy and authority. One side [...] is concerned with defending the authority of science as rooted in [[Empirical evidence|objective evidence]] and [[Rationality|rational]] procedures. The other side argues that it is legitimate and fruitful to study the sciences as [[institution]]s and social-technical networks whose development is influenced by [[linguistics]], [[Economics of science|economics]], [[Politicization of science|politics]], and other factors surrounding formally rational procedures and isolated established facts."<ref name='com'>{{cite web|title=Science Wars|publisher=Encyclopedia.com|access-date=14 December 2022|url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/science-wars|archive-date=3 December 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221203195916/https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/science-wars|url-status=live}}</ref>

The science wars took place principally in the United States in the 1990s in the academic and mainstream press. [[Scientific realism|Scientific realists]] (such as [[Norman Levitt]], [[Paul R. Gross]], [[Jean Bricmont]] and [[Alan Sokal]]) accused many writers, whom they described as '[[postmodernist]]', of having effectively rejected scientific [[Objectivity (science)|objectivity]],  the [[scientific method]], [[empiricism]], and scientific knowledge.{{citation needed|date=December 2022}}

Though much of the theory associated with 'postmodernism' (see [[post-structuralism]]) did not make any interventions into the [[natural sciences]], the scientific realists took aim at its general influence. The scientific realists argued that large swathes of scholarship, amounting to a rejection of objectivity and realism, had been influenced by major 20th-century post-structuralist philosophers (such as [[Jacques Derrida]], [[Gilles Deleuze]], [[Jean-François Lyotard]] and others), whose work they declare to be incomprehensible or meaningless. They implicate a broad range of fields in this trend, including [[cultural studies]], [[feminist studies]], [[comparative literature]], [[media studies]], and especially [[science and technology studies]], which does apply such methods to the study of science.

Physicist [[N. David Mermin]] understands the science wars as a series of exchanges between scientists and "[[sociologist]]s, [[historian]]s and [[literary critic]]s" who the scientists "thought ...were ludicrously ignorant of science, making all kinds of nonsensical pronouncements. The other side dismissed these charges as naive, ill-informed and self-serving."<ref name=":0">{{cite journal |last1=Mermin |first1=N. David |author-link=N. David Mermin |date=July 2008 |title=Science wars revisited |journal=Nature |volume=454 |issue=7202 |pages=276–277 |bibcode=2008Natur.454..276M |doi=10.1038/454276a |s2cid=45065085 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Sociologist [[Harry Collins]] wrote that the "science wars" began "in the early 1990s with attacks by natural scientists or ex-natural scientists who had assumed the role of spokespersons for science. The subject of the attacks was the analysis of science coming out of literary studies and the social sciences."<ref>{{cite web | url=https://sites.cardiff.ac.uk/harrycollins/the-science-wars/ | title=The Science Wars – Harry Collins | access-date=3 December 2022 | archive-date=3 December 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221203194342/https://sites.cardiff.ac.uk/harrycollins/the-science-wars/ | url-status=live }}</ref>

==Historical background==
Until the mid-20th century, the [[philosophy of science]] had concentrated on the viability of scientific method and knowledge, proposing justifications for the truth of scientific theories and observations and attempting to discover at a philosophical level why science worked. 
[[Karl Popper]], an early opponent of [[logical positivism]] in the 20th century, repudiated the classical observationalist/[[Inductivism|inductivist]] form of [[scientific method]] in favour of [[Falsifiability|empirical falsification]]. He is also known for his opposition to the classical [[justificationism|justificationist]]/[[verificationism|verificationist]] account of knowledge which he replaced with [[critical rationalism]], "the first ''non justificational philosophy of criticism'' in the history of philosophy".<ref>[[William W. Bartley|Bartley, William W.]] (1964). [http://www.the-rathouse.com/2008/Bartley1964CCR.html "Rationality versus the Theory of Rationality".] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130102095820/http://www.the-rathouse.com/2008/Bartley1964CCR.html |date=2 January 2013 }} In Mario Bunge: ''The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy''. The Free Press of Glencoe, section IX.</ref>
His criticisms of scientific method were adopted by several postmodernist critiques.<ref>[[David Stove|Stove, David Charles]] (1982). ''[[Popper and After]]: [http://ontology.buffalo.edu/stove/500-600.htm Four Modern Irrationalists] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131019064528/http://ontology.buffalo.edu/stove/500-600.htm |date=19 October 2013 }}'', Oxford: [[Pergamon Press]].</ref>

A number of 20th-century philosophers maintained that logical models of pure science do not apply to actual scientific practice. It was the publication of [[Thomas Kuhn]]'s ''[[The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]]'' in 1962, however, which fully opened the study of science to new disciplines by suggesting that the evolution of science was in part socially determined and that it did not operate under the simple logical laws put forward by the logical positivist school of philosophy.

Kuhn described the development of scientific knowledge not as a linear increase in truth and understanding, but as a series of periodic revolutions which overturned the old scientific order and replaced it with new orders (what he called "[[paradigm]]s"). Kuhn attributed much of this process to the interactions and strategies of the human participants in science rather than its own innate logical structure. (See [[sociology of scientific knowledge]]).

Some interpreted Kuhn's ideas to mean that scientific theories were, either wholly or in part, [[social construction|social constructs]], which many interpreted as diminishing the claim of science to representing objective reality, and that reality had a lesser or potentially irrelevant role in the formation of scientific theories.{{citation needed|date=May 2022}} In 1971,  [[Jerome Ravetz]] published ''[[Scientific knowledge and its social problems]]'', a book describing the role that the scientific community, as a social construct, plays in accepting or rejecting objective scientific knowledge.<ref name="isbn0195197216 ">{{cite book |author=Ravetz, Jerome R. |title=Scientific knowledge and its social problems |url=https://archive.org/details/scientificknowle0000rave |url-access=registration |publisher=Oxford Univ. Press |location=Oxford |year=1979 |isbn=978-0-19-519721-1 }}</ref>

=== Postmodernism ===
{{sources|section|date=April 2024}}
A number of different philosophical and historical schools, often grouped together as "[[postmodernism]]", began reinterpreting scientific achievements of the past through the lens of the practitioners, often positing the influence of politics and economics in the development of scientific theories in addition to scientific observations. Rather than being presented as working entirely from positivistic observations, many scientists of the past were scrutinized for their connection to issues of gender, sexual orientation, race, and class. Some more radical philosophers, such as [[Paul Feyerabend]], argued that scientific theories were themselves incoherent and that other forms of knowledge production (such as those used in [[religion]]) served the material and spiritual needs of their practitioners with equal validity as did scientific explanations.

[[Imre Lakatos]] advanced a midway view between the "postmodernist" and "realist" camps. For Lakatos, scientific knowledge is progressive; however, it progresses not by a strict linear path where every new element builds upon and incorporates every other, but by an approach where a "core" of a "research program" is established by auxiliary theories which can themselves be falsified or replaced without compromising the core. Social conditions and attitudes affect how strongly one attempts to resist falsification for the core of a program, but the program has an objective status based on its relative explanatory power. Resisting falsification only becomes ''ad-hoc'' and damaging to knowledge when an alternate program with greater explanatory power is rejected in favor of another with less. But because it is changing a theoretical core, which has broad ramifications for other areas of study, accepting a new program is also revolutionary as well as progressive. Thus, for Lakatos the character of science is that of being both revolutionary and progressive; both socially informed and objectively justified.

==The science wars==
In ''[[Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science]]'' (1994), scientists [[Paul R. Gross]] and [[Norman Levitt]] accused postmodernists of [[anti-intellectualism]], presented the shortcomings of [[relativism]], and suggested that postmodernists knew little about the scientific theories they criticized and practiced poor [[scholarly method|scholarship]] for political reasons. The authors insist that the "science critics" misunderstood the theoretical approaches they criticized, given their "caricature, misreading, and condescension, [rather] than argument".<ref>Flower, Michael J.  (1995). "Review of ''Higher Superstition'' ", ''Contemporary Sociology'', Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 113–14.</ref><ref>''[[Isis (journal)|Isis]]'' (Vol. 87, No. 2, 1996), ''[[American Anthropologist]]'' (Vol. 98, No. 2, 1996).</ref><ref>''[[Social Studies of Science]]'' (Vol. 26, No. 1, 1996).</ref><ref>The review in ''[[The Journal of Higher Education]]'' (Vol. 66, No. 5, 1995) snidely suggested that book's final sentence proved that politics, the epistemology, philosophy, and science are inter-related.</ref> The book sparked the so-called science wars. ''Higher Superstition'' inspired a [[New York Academy of Sciences]] conference titled ''The Flight from Science and Reason'', organized by Gross, Levitt, and [[Gerald Holton]].<ref>Gross, Levitt, and Martin W. Lewis. (1997). ''The Flight from Science and Reason'' (New York: New York Academy of Science.)</ref> Attendees of the conference were critical of the [[Polemics|polemical]] approach of Gross and Levitt, yet agreed upon the intellectual inconsistency of how laymen, non-scientist, and social studies intellectuals dealt with science.<ref>[http://picpal.com/sciart.html Kramer, Jennifer. "Who's Flying – And In What Direction?"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060510055127/http://picpal.com/sciart.html |date=10 May 2006 }} Coverage of the NYAS Flight from Science and Reason conference. Retrieved 15 May 2006.</ref>

===''Social Text''===
In 1996, ''[[Social Text]]'', a [[left-wing]] [[Duke University]] publication of [[Postmodernism|postmodern]] [[critical theory]], compiled a "Science Wars" issue containing brief articles by postmodernist academics in the [[social sciences]] and the [[humanities]], that emphasized the roles of society and politics in science. In the introduction to the issue, the ''Social Text'' editor, activist [[Andrew Ross (academic)|Andrew Ross]], said that the attack upon [[science studies]] was a [[Conservatism|conservative]] [[Reactionary|reaction]] to reduced funding for scientific research. He characterized the ''Flight from Science and Reason'' conference as an attempted "linking together a host of dangerous threats: [[scientific creationism]], [[New Age]] alternatives and cults, [[astrology]], [[Ufology|UFO-ism]], the radical science movement, postmodernism, and critical science studies, alongside the ready-made historical specters of [[Deutsche Physik|Aryan-Nazi science]] and the Soviet error of [[Lysenkoism]]" that "degenerated into name-calling".<ref>Ross, Andrew.  (1996). "Introduction" ''[[Social Text]] 46/47'', Vol. 14, Nos. 1 & 2, pp. 1–13, esp. p. 7.</ref>

In another ''Social Text'' article, the postmodern sociologist  [[Dorothy Nelkin]] characterised Gross and Levitt's vigorous response as a "call to arms in response to the failed marriage of Science and the State"&mdash;in contrast to the scientists' historical tendency to avoid participating in perceived political threats, such as [[creation science]], the [[animal rights movement]], and anti-abortionists' attempts to curb fetal research.{{clarify|date=April 2013}} At the end of the Soviet–American [[Cold War]] (1945–91), [[military funding of science]] declined, while funding agencies demanded accountability, and research became directed by private interests. Nelkin suggested that postmodernist critics were "convenient scapegoats" who diverted attention from problems in science.<ref>Nelkin, Dorothy.  (1996). "The Science Wars: Responses to a Marriage Failed" ''Social Text'' 46/47, Vol. 14, Nos. 1 & 2, pp. 93–100., p. 95.</ref>

Also in 1996, physicist [[Alan Sokal]] had submitted an article to ''Social Text'' titled "[[Sokal affair|Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity]]", which proposed that [[quantum gravity]] is a [[Linguistics|linguistic]] and [[Social constructionism|social construct]] and that [[quantum physics]] supports postmodernist criticisms of scientific [[Objectivity (science)|objectivity]]. The staff published it in the "Science Wars" issue as a relevant contribution, later claiming that they held the article back from earlier issues due to Sokal's alleged refusal to consider revisions.<ref>Robbins, Bruce and Ross, Andrew. [http://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/SocialText_reply_LF.pdf Editorial Response to the hoax, explaining Social Text's decision to publish] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120609153913/http://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/SocialText_reply_LF.pdf |date=9 June 2012 }}</ref> Later, in the May 1996 issue of ''[[Lingua Franca (magazine)|Lingua Franca]]'', in the article "A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies", Sokal exposed his [[parody]]-article, "Transgressing the Boundaries" as an experiment testing the [[intellectual rigor]] of an [[academic journal]] that would "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sokal |first1=Alan D. |title=Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity |journal=Social Text |year=1996 |issue=46/47 |pages=217–252 |doi=10.2307/466856 |jstor=466856 }}</ref> The matter became known as the "[[Sokal Affair]]" and brought greater public attention to the wider conflict.<ref>Sokal, Alan. (1996).  "[http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190904042240/https://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html |date=2019-09-04 }}," ''Lingua Franca'', May/June, pp 62–64.</ref>

[[Jacques Derrida]], a frequent target of anti-[[moral relativism|relativist]] and anti-postmodern criticism in the wake of Sokal's article, responded to the hoax in "Sokal and Bricmont Aren't Serious", first published in ''[[Le Monde]]''. He called Sokal's action sad (''triste'') for having overshadowed Sokal's mathematical work and ruined the chance to sort out controversies of scientific objectivity in a careful way. Derrida went on to fault him and co-author Jean Bricmont for what he considered an act of intellectual bad faith: they had accused him of scientific incompetence in the English edition of a follow-up book (an accusation several English reviewers noted), but deleted the accusation from the French edition and denied that it had ever existed. He concluded, as the title indicates, that Sokal was not serious in his approach, but had used the spectacle of a "quick practical joke" to displace the scholarship Derrida believed the public deserved.<ref>{{cite book |last=Derrida |first=Jacques |author-link=Jacques Derrida |title=Paper Machine |url=https://archive.org/details/papermachinecult00derr |url-access=limited |orig-year=1994 |year=2005 |publisher=Stanford University Press |location=Stanford |page=[https://archive.org/details/papermachinecult00derr/page/n41 70] |no-pp=true |isbn=978-0-8047-4619-9}}</ref>

===Continued conflict===
In the first few years after the 'Science Wars' edition of ''Social Text'', the seriousness and volume of discussion increased significantly, much of it focused on reconciling the 'warring' camps of postmodernists and scientists.  One significant event was the 'Science and Its Critics' conference in early 1997; it brought together scientists and scholars who study science and featured Alan Sokal and [[Steve Fuller (sociologist)|Steve Fuller]] as keynote speakers.  The conference generated the final wave of substantial press coverage (in both news media and scientific journals), though by no means resolved the fundamental issues of [[social construction]] and [[Objectivity (science)|objectivity]] in science.<ref>Baringer, Philip S. (2001). "Introduction: 'the science wars'", from ''After the Science Wars'', eds. Keith M. Ashman and Philip S. Baringer. New York: Routledge, p. 2.</ref>

Other attempts have been made to reconcile the two camps. Mike Nauenberg, a physicist at the [[University of California, Santa Cruz]], organized a small conference in May 1997 that was attended by scientists and sociologists of science alike, among them [[Alan Sokal]], [[N. David Mermin]] and [[Harry Collins]]. In the same year, Collins organized the Southampton Peace Workshop, which again brought together a broad range of scientists and sociologists. The Peace Workshop gave rise to the idea of a book that intended to map out some of the arguments between the disputing parties. ''The One Culture?:  A Conversation about Science'', edited by chemist Jay A. Labinger and sociologist Harry Collins, was eventually published in 2001. The book's title is a reference to [[C. P. Snow]]'s ''[[The Two Cultures]]''. It contains contributions from authors such as Alan Sokal, Jean Bricmont, [[Steven Weinberg]], and [[Steven Shapin]].<ref>Labinger, Jay A. and [[Harry Collins]]. (2001). "Preface", in: ''The One Culture?:  A Conversation about Science'', eds. Labinger, Jay A and [[Harry Collins]]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. ix–xi.</ref>

Other significant publications related to the science wars include ''[[Fashionable Nonsense]]'' by Sokal and [[Jean Bricmont]] (1998), ''The Social Construction of What?'' by [[Ian Hacking]] (1999) and ''Who Rules in Science'' by [[James Robert Brown]] (2004).

To [[John C. Baez]], the [[Bogdanov Affair]] in 2002<ref name=Chronicle>{{cite web | last = Monastersky | first = Richard | title = French TV Stars Rock the World of Theoretical Physics | work = [[Chronicle of Higher Education]] | date = 2 November 2002 | url = http://chronicle.com/free/2002/11/2002110501n.htm | access-date = 20 March 2008 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080207103228/http://chronicle.com/free/2002/11/2002110501n.htm |archive-date = 7 February 2008}}</ref> served as the bookend to the Sokal controversy: the review, acceptance, and publication of papers, later alleged to be nonsense, in peer-reviewed physics journals. [[Cornell University|Cornell]] physics professor [[Paul Ginsparg]], argued that the cases are not at all similar and that the fact that some journals and scientific institutions have low standards is "hardly a revelation".<ref name="ginsparg">[[Ginsparg, Paul]]. (12 November 2002). "'Is It Art?'  Is Not a Question for Physics".  ''[[The New York Times]]'', section A, p. 26.</ref> The new editor in chief of the journal ''[[Annals of Physics]]'', who was appointed after the controversy along with a new editorial staff, had said that the standards of the journal had been poor leading up to the publication since the previous editor had become sick and died.<ref name=Chronicle />

Interest in the science wars has waned considerably in recent years.  Though the events of the science wars are still occasionally mentioned in the mainstream press, they have had little effect on either the scientific community or the community of critical theorists.{{Citation needed|date=May 2007}} Both sides continue to maintain that the other does not understand their theories, or mistakes constructive criticisms and scholarly investigations for attacks. In 1999, the French sociologist [[Bruno Latour]]—at the time believing that the natural sciences are [[social constructivism|socially constructivist]]—said, "Scientists always stomp around meetings talking about 'bridging the two-culture gap', but when scores of people from outside the sciences begin to build just that bridge, they recoil in horror and want to impose the strangest of all gags on free speech since [[Socrates]]: only scientists should speak about science!"<ref>Latour, B. (1999). ''[http://www.bruno-latour.fr/livres/vii_tdm.html  Pandora's Hope.  Essays on the Reality of Science Studies] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070904092247/http://www.bruno-latour.fr/livres/vii_tdm.html |date=4 September 2007 }}'', [[Harvard University Press]], US.</ref> Subsequently, Latour has suggested a re-evaluation of sociology's epistemology based on lessons learned from the Science Wars: "...&nbsp;scientists made us realize that there was not the slightest chance that the type of social forces we use as a cause could have objective facts as their effects".<ref>Latour, B. (2005). ''Reassembling the Social.  An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory'', Oxford University Press, US, p. 100.{{ISBN?}}</ref>

Reviewing Sokal's ''[[Beyond the Hoax]]'', Mermin stated that "As a sign that the science wars are over, I cite the 2008 election of Bruno Latour [...] to Foreign Honorary Membership in that bastion of the establishment, the [[American Academy of Arts and Sciences]]" and opined that "we are not only beyond Sokal's hoax, but beyond the science wars themselves".<ref name=":0" />

However, more recently, some of the leading critical theorists have recognized that their critiques have, at times, been counter-productive and are providing intellectual ammunition for reactionary interests.<ref>{{Cite web|author1=SERRC|date=10 July 2017| author2=Erik Baker | author3=Naomi Oreskes | author3-link=Naomi Oreskes | title=It's No Game: Post-Truth and the Obligations of Science Studies |url=https://social-epistemology.com/2017/07/10/its-no-game-post-truth-and-the-obligations-of-science-studies-erik-baker-and-naomi-oreskes/|access-date=8 November 2020|website=Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective|language=en-US|archive-date=30 September 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200930021625/https://social-epistemology.com/2017/07/10/its-no-game-post-truth-and-the-obligations-of-science-studies-erik-baker-and-naomi-oreskes/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Writing about these developments in the context of [[global warming]], Latour noted that "dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives.  Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we said?"<ref>Latour, B. (2004). ''[http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/89-CRITICAL-INQUIRY-GB.pdf Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120916045752/http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/89-CRITICAL-INQUIRY-GB.pdf |date=16 September 2012 }}'', ''[[Critical Inquiry]]'' 30, pp. 225–48.</ref>

[[Kendrick Frazier]] notes that Latour is interested in helping to rebuild trust in science and that Latour has said that some of the authority of science needs to be regained.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Frazier |first1=Kendrick |author-link=Kendrick Frazier|title='Science Wars' Veteran Latour Now Wants to Help Rebuild Trust in Science |journal=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |year=2018 |volume=42 |issue=1 |page=7}}</ref>

In 2016, [[Shawn Lawrence Otto]], in his book ''The War on Science: Who's Waging It, Why It Matters, and What We can Do About It,'' that the winners of the war on science "will chart the future of power, democracy, and freedom itself."<ref name="Radford and Frazier (2017)">{{cite journal |author1=[[Benjamin Radford|Radford, Benjamin]] |author2=[[Kendrick Frazier|Frazier, Kendrick]] |title=The War on Science: Who's Waging It, Why It Matters, and What We Can Do About It |journal=Skeptical Inquirer |date=January 2017 |volume=41 |issue=1 |page=61}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Chomsky–Foucault debate]]
* [[Culture war]]
* [[Deconstruction]]
* [[Grievance studies affair]]
* [[Historiography of science]]
* [[Nature versus nurture]]
* [[Normative science]]
* [[Positivism]]
* [[Positivism dispute]]
* [[Science for the People]]
* [[Scientific rationalism]]
* [[Scientism]]
* [[Searle–Derrida debate]]
* [[Strong programme]]
* [[Suppressed research in the Soviet Union]]
* [[Teissier affair]]

==Notes==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==References==
* [[Keith M. Ashman|Ashman, Keith M.]] and Barringer, Philip S. (ed.) (2001). ''After the science wars'', Routledge, London. {{ISBN|0-415-21209-X}}
* Gross, Paul R. and Levitt, Norman (1994). ''[[Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science]]'', Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. {{ISBN|0-8018-4766-4}}
* Sokal, Alan D. (1996).  [http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity], ''Social Text'' '''46/47''', 217–252.
* Callon, Michel (1999). Whose Impostures? Physicists at War with the Third Person, ''Social Studies of Science'' '''29(2)''', 261–286.
* Parsons, Keith (ed.) (2003). ''The Science Wars: Debating Scientific Knowledge and Technology'', Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, US. {{ISBN|1-57392-994-8}}
* Labinger, Jay A. and [[Harry Collins|Collins, Harry]] (eds.) (2001). ''The One Culture?: A Conversation About Science'', University of Chicago Press, Chicago. {{ISBN|0-226-46723-6}}
* [[James Robert Brown|Brown, James R.]] (2001). ''Who Rules in Science? An Opinionated Guide to the Wars'', Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.{{ISBN?}}

== External links ==
* [http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/ Papers by Alan Sokal on the "''Social Text'' Affair"]
* {{Cite web |last=Henriques |first=Gregg |author-link=Gregg Henriques |date=June 1, 2012 |title=Revisiting the Science Wars {{!}} Psychology Today |url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201206/revisiting-the-science-wars |access-date=2023-06-03 |website=[[Psychology Today]] |language=en-US}}

{{Positivism |debate}}
{{Criticism of postmodernism}}
{{Science and technology studies}}

[[Category:Science and technology studies]]
[[Category:Historiography of science]]
[[Category:Critical theory|Science Wars]]
[[Category:Criticism of postmodernism|Science Wars]]
[[Category:Criticism of science]]
[[Category:Scientific controversies]]
[[Category:Ideological rivalry|Science Wars]]
[[Category:Politics of science]]
[[Category:Philosophical debates]]
[[Category:Philosophy controversies]]
[[Category:Criticism of academia]]