Summary

Scientific research involves a social process, and social interactions have an important influence on what we classify as objective knowledge. Within the Scientific community there are norms about how scientists should behave in claiming priority for discoveries, giving credit to others through the citation process, and maintaining emotional neutrality during research. Counternorms can be recognized for each norm, and social processes influence the balance between norms and counternorms and the relative degrees of skepticism and dogmatism maintained within groups of scientists.

Social processes are particularly important in production of scientific papers. Scientists simplify accounts of their work as they write and respond to criticism and use particular forms of rhetoric to construct arguments in the most favorable way. These rhetorical conventions are standardized within different branches of science. Peer review pays particular attention to the types of knowledge claims made by authors and how these are expressed within the rhetorical conventions of the subject.

Social studies of science have challenged the historical view of science as intrinsically objective – with individuals proceeding with humility and skepticism for their own ideas and results. They have shown that by determining who is involved, and what attitudes they have, social systems can limit not only the amount, but also the types of criticism permitted. Among scientists in related fields of research the degree of objectivity increases and the nature of knowledge changes, as scrutiny and debate pass through three stages of criticism.