accademiche [38]. Ada [45]. Adrian [45]. African [56]. Age [39, 49, 61]. Al [23]. Al-Rawi [23]. Aldous [68]. Alex [15]. Allure [46]. America [60, 66]. American [49, 69, 61, 52]. ancienne [25]. Andreas [28]. Angela [42]. Animals [16]. Ann [26]. Anna [19, 47]. Annotated [46]. Annotations [28]. Anti [37]. Anti-Copernican [37]. Antibiotic [64]. Anxiety [51]. Apocalyptic [61]. Archaeology [26]. Ark [36]. Artisan [32]. Asylum [48]. Atri [54]. Audra [65]. Australia [41]. Authorship [15]. Axelle [29].

/pdf/a-complete-bibliography-of-publications-in-isis-2000-2009-1nklqbzyfs.pdf

A Complete Bibliography of Publications in Isis, 2000{2009

Preface vii 1 The Prehistory of Science and Technology Studies 1 2 The Kuhnian Revolution 12 3 Questioning Functionalism in the Sociology of Science 23 4 Stratification and Discrimination 36 5 The Strong Programme and the Sociology of Knowledge 47 6 The Social Construction of Scientific and Technical Realities 57 7 Feminist Epistemologies of Science 72 8 Actor-Network Theory 81 9 Two Questions Concerning Technology 93 10 Studying Laboratories 106 11 Controversies 120 12 Standardization and Objectivity 136 13 Rhetoric and Discourse 148 14 The Unnaturalness of Science and Technology 157 15 The Public Understanding of Science 168 16 Expertise and Public Participation 180 17 Political Economies of Knowledge 189 References 205 Index 236

http://pos89.persiangig.com/document/Sociology%20of%20Science/An%20Introduction%20to%20Science%20and%20Technology%20Studies%20(Sergio%20Sismondo).pdf

An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies

/pdf/democracy-and-knowledge-innovation-and-learning-in-classical-jinvrr6q3w.pdf

Democracy and Knowledge: Innovation and Learning in Classical Athens

How does algorithmic information processing affect the meaning of the word culture, and, by extension, cultural practice? We address this question by focusing on the Netflix Prize (2006–2009), a contest offering US$1m to the first individual or team to boost the accuracy of the company’s existing movie recommendation system by 10%. Although billed as a technical challenge intended for engineers, we argue that the Netflix Prize was equally an effort to reinterpret the meaning of culture in ways that overlapped with, but also diverged in important respects from, the three dominant senses of the term assayed by Raymond Williams. Thus, this essay explores the conceptual and semantic work required to render algorithmic information processing systems legible as forms of cultural decision making. It also then represents an effort to add depth and dimension to the concept of “algorithmic culture.”

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1461444814538646

Recommended for you: The Netflix Prize and the production of algorithmic culture:

Depictive expressions of thought predate written language by thousands of years. They have evolved in communities through a kind of informal user testing that has refined them. Analyzing common visual communications reveals consistencies that illuminate how people think as well as guide design; the process can be brought into the laboratory and accelerated. Like language, visual communications abstract and schematize; unlike language, they use properties of the page (e.g., proximity and place: center, horizontal/up-down, vertical/left-right) and the marks on it (e.g., dots, lines, arrows, boxes, blobs, likenesses, symbols) to convey meanings. The visual expressions of these meanings (e.g., individual, category, order, relation, correspondence, continuum, hierarchy) have analogs in language, gesture, and especially in the patterns that are created when people design the world around them, arranging things into piles and rows and hierarchies and arrays, spatial-abstraction-action interconnections termed spractions. The designed world is a diagram.

Visualizing Thought: Topics in Cognitive Science(2010)

The Fifth Hammer: Pythagoras and the Disharmony of the World

ABSTRACT Did science, as we know it, have to be? The article explores a possible response in the negative, organized around a specific contingency: that of Greek mathematics or, even more specifically, that of the mathematics of the generation of Archimedes. The argument is that (1) Greek mathematics, seen against a cross-cultural comparison, is an anomaly, (2) the scientific revolution, as it in fact unfolded, was directly shaped by the anomaly of Greek mathematics, and (3) it is not clear that, absent Greek mathematics, an equivalent scientific revolution would have taken place. The argument is developed in some detail concerning the history of ancient Greek science, but more is said on the inevitably philosophical questions of counterfactuals in history and on the specific question of the contingency of science.

The place of Archimedes in world history

The first jewish scientist

Archimedes is now best known for shouting "Eureka" in the bath, and perhaps also for his
 invention of the cunning machines that helped to defend Syracuse from the Roman fleet
 during the Punic Wars in 212 BP. He is less famous for his most profound work--the subtle
 deductions and rigorous, often counterintuitive, mathematical proofs of seemingly prosaic
 problems. His path-breaking work has reached new prominence among scholars with the
 rediscovery of a long-lost palimpsest copy of some of his writings, which for the first
 time shows that Greek mathematicians could work with infinite sets of numbers.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/298/5595/967.full.pdf

Proof, Amazement, and the Unexpected

A relatively well-known puzzle in the history of Greek mathematics arises from Eutocius’ ascription to Plato, in the context of a commentary on Archimedes, of a mechanical solution to the problem of finding two mean proportionals.1 That a mathematical text by Plato may have existed in antiquity, have survived until the sixth century A.D., and yet have left no other trace before or since, is incredible. On the other hand, there is no doubt that Eutocius intended his ascription—and so, probably, did his source—to refer to the famous philosopher Plato, and not to some otherwise unknown flat-footed ancient author. Other things being equal, a Plato is a Plato is a Plato.2 Thus Eutocius certainly makes a false ascription, most probably reflecting one in a lost source. The arising puzzle is twofold: first, to identify the real author of the solution; second, to explain how the solution could have been falsely ascribed to Plato. The first part of the puzzle was discussed by Knorr (who, for reasons that will become apparent below, considers the solution to be ultimately by Eudoxus).3 In this article, I concentrate on the second part of the puzzle. That something meaningful can be said concerning such questions of ascription— always very difficult to analyse—is due to the presence of another puzzle in the immediate vicinity of this one. Putting the two puzzles together, some pattern may emerge, possibly offering clues for the solution.

Reviel Netz

Papers

The Fifth Hammer: Pythagoras and the Disharmony of the World

The place of Archimedes in world history

The first jewish scientist

Proof, Amazement, and the Unexpected

Plato's mathematical construction