In the article “A Tension in the Strong Program: The Relation between the Rational and the Social,” I stated that David Bloor, citing the principle of symmetry, expresses that rational and irrational beliefs must be explained in the same way, that is, by causes of the same kind. On this wise, he rejects the methodology of traditional philosophers and historians of science as asymmetrical; since they explain evidence-based beliefs with epistemic reasons and unreasonable beliefs—e.g. beliefs based on indoctrination, propaganda, ideology, (...) and superstition—citing social factors. On the other hand, Bloor argues that the rational is made entirely of the social and, therefore, is itself a kind of social factor. But by admitting this maximum conception of social constructivism, Bloor can no longer consider the rational and the social as two separate identities and accuse the traditional view of asymmetry. However, Professor Finn Collin says that Bloor’s critique of the traditional model never commits him to the duality of the rational and the social. (shrink)

Este trabajo tiene como objetivo analizar la aparente interna del Programa Fuerte de la Sociología del Conocimiento, que parte de principios donde se apoya una explicación causal a través de leyes generales y al mismo tiempo se defiende un reativismo cognitivo para estudiar su objeto de manera simétrica; ta la propuesta de que los mismos tipos de causa deberán explicar tanto las creencias consideradas falsas como las verdaderas. A través de este análisis se pretende constatar la consistencia del programa y, (...) principalmente, aproximarnos a la elucidación de su concepto de ciencia. The aim of this work is to analyze the aparent internal tension of the strong programme of sociology of knowledge, wich support a casual explanation thougout general rules and in the same time a cognitive relativism to study its aim in a symmetrical way; such is the purpose that in the same sort of cause that will ought to explain both the false and the true beief. Throughout this analysis its pretended to verify the programme consistence and, mainly, to approach to elucidation on its science concept. (shrink)

Antony Flew's ?A Strong Programme for the Sociology of Belief (Inquiry 25 {1982], 365?78) critically assesses the strong programme in the sociology of knowledge defended in David Bloor's Knowledge and Social Imagery. I argue that Flew's rejection of the epistemological relativism evident in Bloor's work begs the question against the relativist and ignores Bloor's focus on the social relativity of mathematical knowledge. Bloor attempts to establish such relativity via a sociological analysis of Frege's theory of number. But this analysis only (...) succeeds if the rejection of an explanatory theory entails that there are reasonable grounds for the rejection of the set of propositions which that theory was intended to explain. I argue against such an entailment, and thus against Bloor's attempt to relativize mathematical knowledge. (shrink)

RELATIVISM AND THE SOCIAL SCIENCES by Ernest Gellner Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. 200 pp., £25, £8.50 (paper) Gellner assails Wittgenstein's putative legitimation of the relativistic assumption that ?forms of life?; are autonomous and ultimate, mutually incommunicable, and immune to external criticism. Gellner's view is used here to defend a reconstructed Popperian position against all comers, including Gellner. The tactic is to attack the Cartesian presuppositions Popper implicitly shares with the whole Logical Positivist tradition, arguing that these cannot even be (...) coherently expressed without presupposing the possession of knowledge of the various kinds thereby denied. (shrink)