METHODOLOGY AND INSTITUTION: THE NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC LEARNIN

The central view of this dissertation is that a more comprehensive theory of scientific learning must incorporate insights from the disciplines of methodology and sociology. The standards of methodology play an indispensible role in learning by providing some of the principles necessary for theoretical evaluation. But such principles are not sufficient for socially embedded learning and they do not exclude the operation of social interests within science. It is the institutional structure of science that helps make up what abstract standards alone lack: the material means with which to affect the advancement of learning. Institutions add something of their own dynamic to learning by helping to realize the abstract principles of methodology--they are never simply neutral husks.;The views of a number of methodologists and sociologists are examined to demonstrate that this view of learning has not always been appreciated. Some methodologists have thought that by developing a theory of scientific method they were ensuring science's insulation from society at large. Such projects expect too much of methodology and the best methodology we have--fallibilism--leaves science open to social influence. Some sociologists have seen the role of a social theory as cutting across that of methodology--as if a social account of learning could only be at the expense of methodology. This had led some to deny methodology any explanatory power and others to limit sociology to accounting for merely the external aspects of scientific development.;I throughout try to suggest how learning may be best accounted for by a fallibilist methodology combined with an institutional social theory. Such a dual view of learning is helpful because the advancement of learning is at times as dependent on its material constraints as on its intellectual ones. Thus, a comprehensive theory of learning can help science be a more critical enterprise and so contribute to its advancement.