A new name for the field?
DiscussionsHistory of Science/Technology/Medicine
Rejoignez LibraryThing pour poster.
Ce sujet est actuellement indiqué comme "en sommeil"—le dernier message date de plus de 90 jours. Vous pouvez le réveiller en postant une réponse.
1paranous
I was wondering if anyone had any good ideas for a better name for the field of study generally known as the history and philosophy of science (HPS). It's clearly too limited. This is seen in the proliferation of designations, including the history of science & technology (sometimes medicine is included as well); science studies; or science, technology and society (STS). But these leave out some common approaches, including the sociology and anthropology of science/technology/medicine, etc. Is there a general term that could encompass the whole field? 'Science studies' is the most general, but it doesn't sound adequate to my ears, at least. A while ago, I thought I had the perfect name for this collection of studies. The only problem was that the name was already taken (and in a controversial way too). I was thinking of....'scientology', literally 'the study of science'. But this, alas, won't do either.
Any suggestions? Or is the proliferation of designations for the field(s) in question inevitable and, in the end, simply to be accepted?
Any suggestions? Or is the proliferation of designations for the field(s) in question inevitable and, in the end, simply to be accepted?
3ABVR
Good question . . . would that I had a good answer to go with it!
One problem, I think, is that the metaphorical tent has grown so big that any reasonably compact term is going to leave out *something* that belongs under it. Once you've gotten "science, technology, and medicine" into a name, it's already pretty unwieldy.
Another problem is that the meta-field we're trying to name has been formed by the gradual convergence of a number of related fields. Each have their own histories, approaches, and cultural baggage, and all that comes along with their names. Any existing term, if reused, will inevitably drag all its baggage along behind it. "Science Studies," for those of us who went to grad school in the 1980s, connotes not just an area of study but a specific theoretical program. "Science, Technology, and Society," though objectively a good description of what (say) Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin were writing about in American Prometheus, has a distinctly presentist, public-policy-oriented air about it.
The only term that I've come up with in two days of thinking about the question is "STM Studies," with the initials standing, of course, for "Science, Technology, and Medicine." It's broad and inclusive, and (being a new coinage) has no baggage. That just leaves the problems that: 1) Nobody will know what STM means; 2) It's duller than stale corn flakes.
There's *got* to be a better answer. Anybody?
One problem, I think, is that the metaphorical tent has grown so big that any reasonably compact term is going to leave out *something* that belongs under it. Once you've gotten "science, technology, and medicine" into a name, it's already pretty unwieldy.
Another problem is that the meta-field we're trying to name has been formed by the gradual convergence of a number of related fields. Each have their own histories, approaches, and cultural baggage, and all that comes along with their names. Any existing term, if reused, will inevitably drag all its baggage along behind it. "Science Studies," for those of us who went to grad school in the 1980s, connotes not just an area of study but a specific theoretical program. "Science, Technology, and Society," though objectively a good description of what (say) Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin were writing about in American Prometheus, has a distinctly presentist, public-policy-oriented air about it.
The only term that I've come up with in two days of thinking about the question is "STM Studies," with the initials standing, of course, for "Science, Technology, and Medicine." It's broad and inclusive, and (being a new coinage) has no baggage. That just leaves the problems that: 1) Nobody will know what STM means; 2) It's duller than stale corn flakes.
There's *got* to be a better answer. Anybody?
