Words/Phrases DEFINED: "sociology of science". Father Jerome's DICTIONARY of KEYWORDS used in his QUFD website.

A Definition/Description of the keyword/phrase "sociology of science", as used in the QUFD website and in Father Jerome's scientific writings.

The keyword/phrase "sociology of science" relates to, and is part of, the classification(s) listed below, as used in the text or auxiliary documents of the QUFD website and in Father Jerome's scientific writings.

Bose
Bose-Einstein condensates
brain/mind
cognition
consciousness
Einstein
God
gravity
Holothetic communications
human evolution
Infinite Consciousness
Jung
KNOWING
mind
philosophy of mind
physics
psychology
quantum physics
quantum consciousness
quantum unitary field dynamics
QUFD
science
self
Soul
spirit
theology of reality
theoretical physics
time
Veil of Separation
Veil of Unknowing
whole person

The GENERAL CONTEXT of such use is:
The term refers to one of the fields of science which is at once populated by many minions of Satan's negativity and, at the same time, many people who practice that divisiveness and those distortions (see the listing for "distortions") of reality which do constitute Satan's Veil of Separation/Unknowing. In this case, such people are examining the science and the practice of scientific investigation with their particular biases and narrow-minded opinions well in tow; i.e., they are well "programmed" (see the listings for "program...(et al)") in Satan's obfuscation (see the listing for "obfuscate") and distortions of reality, and they love to "judge" others, NOT for themselves alone (as Christ has so advised us to do - "Judge not, lest ye be Judged, but Judge ONLY for thineself alone!"), but for others of their ilk, that they might "gather", as the old "game" might be called, the "collective judgement" (a practice of Satan's negativity called "inquisition") of their "peers", in, among other things, condemning any and every undertaking of science which does not "fit" their pre-conceived "concepts" of what is right and wrong, what is the truth and what is not, and, of course, what is "acceptable" and what is not, to these vested interest "pillars" of the scientific "Establishment".
And, inevitably, such folks ARE trying to protect the "old ways" of scientific endeavor which have already been obsoleted BY the very practice of that science, and those practitioners, which they are condemning. (Now this is not to say that condemnation, as a result of objective, logical and rational critical analysis, based on truth and reality, is not a valid pronouncement and undertaking when the purpose and intent thereof is to "shine some light" on something for the edification and education of others. In fact, Jerome does and has certainly indulged in such critical analysis, and does so only with the purest of intentions, in providing insight to his readers so that they might "judge" for themselves, in and of their own KNOWING, as to what the actual facts of any matter might be.) And when I say that such folks (I'm not going to be nasty enough to call them "quacks", charlatans, or purveyors of snake oil, but certainly my feelings might be so inclined to do so!) are trying to protect the "old ways", I am, of course, referring to that practice of science which is known as "classical" Newtonian physics, which has already been found deficient by most of the modern, knowledgable, scientific community and has been roundly denounced thereby. (See Father Jerome's COMMENTS on modern brain/mind research, for LINKS to other online papers by other scientists of the Quantum which dismiss these "vestiges" of classical Newtonian mechanics.)
So, to continue my analysis of the "sociology of science", exactly what DO these practitioners thereof offer? FIRST, they offer the perspectives of the typical "dyed-in-the-wool" Newtonian physicist: a. that "physicality" (meaning corporeality) is the primary criteria for "reality", and that incorporeality has no validity in the examination of reality; b. that the microcosm and the macrocosm are two different things and that "ne'er shall the 'twain meet" (perpetuating that other nefarious "classical" theorem, Cartesian "duality", which I discuss more extensively elsewhere in my Works); and c. that one CANNOT be a scientist UNLESS one encompasses the precepts OF classical mechanics and applies such TO any scientific investigation of the Quantum, the Cosmos and humanity.
SECOND, they offer "science by consensus", with their "Establishment" dictating what is science (and what is "fact") and what is not. And although there are yet numbers of these "Establishmentarians" in both academia and other scientific positions, their relevance is surely waning as the truths and the realities of the modern (AND the ancient) scientists of the Quantum take precedence in the practice of science in today's world.
And THIRDLY, the very name of the discipline - SOCIOLOGY of science - does imply and define the field: a "community" of like-minded (classical "mechanics") Establishmentarians, intent on defending and promoting their "turf", their biases, and their prejudicial opinioning, with regard to any and every scientific undertaking.
All of this, of course, leaves out the individual modern scientist of the Quantum. And they (the Establishmentarians) can certainly quote many past practitioners and advocates of their "art", in "justification" of science as a "social" practice, NOT an individual, realistic, undertaking by dedicated individual scientists. In fact, it is my opinion that there will NOT be any really good and relevant "science" accomplished UNTIL individual scientists can be given free-rein to "do their thing", unhampered by those Establishmentarian "fetters" of that "sociology of science". See the following two LINKS for examples of such biases on-line. There may be some good info in such "collectivized epistemology", but, as Andrew Russ's page, the "Sociology of Science", states (with regard to the journal "Speed") - "Tres Po-Mo, tho".
Sante Fe Institute's Empirical Sociology of Science
Andrew Russ - Sociology of Science