Editors’ Introduction: Science, Belief and the Sociological Tradition
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Science, belief and sociology Summarizing the sociological study of science and religion a little over 10 years ago, John H. Evans and Michael S. Evans (2008: 88) wrote: Although we know of no study of the comparative coherence of sociological research areas, we suspect that the field of religion and science is one of the muddiest in all of sociology. The conceptual source of this muddiness lies in the long-running academic assumption that religion and science always conflict and that they conflict over competing truth claims about the world. It is therefore hard for sociologists to analyze the relationship dispassionately because sociology itself was born as a scientific alternative to religion. While, as we will see shortly, there have been notable developments since this was written, Evans and Evans's point still stands. Sociological exploration of questions to do with science and religion (or, as we prefer to phrase it, science and belief) is extremely limited and scattered across largely isolated sub-disciplines. Beyond the US (where most research has focused), it would be hard to even describe it as a ‘field of study’, so limited and disjointed has research been to date. This is surprising in many ways because science and religion has been an abiding subject of public debate for many decades in many parts of the world, and there are numerous ways in which it intersects with sociologists’ concerns. Religious voices play a prominent role in many conflicts over science, from stem cell research to, most famously, evolution. There has also been a trend towards religious groups – from evangelicals (Toumey, 1994) to Muslim revivalists (Unsworth, Chapter 12, this volume), to Hindu nationalists (Thomas, Chapter 6, this volume) – justifying their beliefs by making a claim on science (von Stuckrad, 2014). At the same time, science has been deeply entangled in debates about secularization; many non-religious people see science as central to their identity (Lee, Chapter 8, this volume), while humanist and secularist organizations have regularly characterized themselves as ‘fighting in the name of science’ (Kind, Chapter 9, this volume). Yet, this subject has been on the margins of sociology for many years. It is hard to understand why this is without, as Evans and Evans say, taking into account the influence of what historians refer to as the ‘conflict thesis’.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».