The social construction of scientific evidence

Abstract

Sociologists of science have asserted that because theory is underspecified by evidence, it becomes necessary to draw upon social and political interests to explain the successes and failures of science. As one example of such claims, Steven Shapin suggests that the 17th-century experimentalist Robert Boyle, in his “Hydrostatical Discourse”, dismissed the testimony of a particular segment of society based upon its members' social status. This claim is refuted by an examination of Boyle's use of experimental methodology in the “Hydrostatical Discourse”. It is concluded that Boyle's use of experimental methodology is consistent with the idea that scientific evidence is socially constructed in the sense that the factual items used as evidence for a theory are constructed through processes that involve social negotiation. However, the idea that evidence is socially constructed does not mean that facts are socially constituted as well, that is, defined primarily by social and political considerations. The recalcitrance of nature often acts contrary to political and social interests.