SOC 456 -- Science & Technology in Social Context -- OSU Extended Campus

Unit 2: Conceptualization

Lecture

I mentioned in the first lecture that a common understanding of concepts and ideas is an important foundation of both science and Sociology. In this lecture, I’m going to explain why communicating clearly is so important and how the process of conceptualization can help us understand both science and technology. As you will see, many of the ethical concerns raised in Part I of the text revolve around different definitions of concepts.

English teachers divide nouns into many categories. Sociologists divide nouns into only two categories. The first category consists of nouns that refer to something that actually exists in a physical form. Books, cars, buildings, rivers, fish, John Smith, apples, bridges, and hammers fit into this category. The other category of nouns refers to things that are real but don’t actually exist in a physical form. Things like love, happiness, friendship, patriotism, social class, crime, fun, parenthood, and sociology are all abstractions. Their reality lies in the mental images we have of such things, not in the physical world. Sociologists, and scientists in general, refer to such nouns as “concepts.” Concepts are things which exist only in the abstract, only as shared mental images of something.

Now note that even in the first category of nouns, language is symbolic. The word “apple” is not really an apple. You can’t eat that word nor make apple pie out of it. But an apple is a real thing and you could bring me an apple pie if I asked you for one. Nouns in the second category are also symbolic. The difference is that the things they refer to, the images they call up in our minds, are much more nebulous. You can’t see friendship nor could you bring me some if I asked

you to. You can show me example of what you perceive to be “friendship,” as in this picture, and I might or might not agree that is what it is, but you can’t pick up friendship and place it on a table. I call that the “bring me some” test. If you can bring me an object, like a fish, or take me to see it, like a lake, it’s a thing. But if you can only show me examples, examples that you expect me to interpret the same way you do, then it’s a concept. For example, you may think a family is a thing. But you can’t show me a family. You can show me four people and a dog – a man, a woman, two children, and a Golden Retriever but the label “family” is a concept. What I actually see are four people and a dog. Think about showing me two men and two children. Some people might call that a family. Others would not. Two men and two children do not fit their mental image of a family. That’s why “family” is a concept.

And that illustrates the problem with concepts. We don’t always have the same mental pictures of them. They are often similar but never identical. In everyday life this doesn’t make too much difference. We get along pretty well with similar definitions of happiness, fun, sorrow, or friendship. But not always. Have you ever had a friend let you down in some way and then never understand what they did that was wrong to you? That can happen because people have different definitions of friendship. One person thinks friendship means always being available to help. The other thinks it means never imposing on someone. Love sometimes gets us into trouble too. If one person in a relationship thinks love means spending every possible moment together and the other thinks it means having someone to rely on when no one else is available, the relationship is in for trouble unless people can make their conceptualizations (definitions) clear and come to a common mental image.

Now when it comes to ethics, politics and the legal system, conceptual definitions begin to matter a lot. The debates over abortion and the use of new biotechnologies are partly about different conceptualizations of “life.” The “right-to-lifers” think life begins at conception or maybe before. “Pro-choice” advocates think it begins much later. New biotechnologies will force all of us to clarify our conceptualizations of “life” and “health” and “morality.” We’ve already covered the debate over whether or not gay or lesbian relationships constitute a family. Depends on the definition of family, doesn’t it? We argue frequently in Oregon over “sustainability.” What constitutes sustainable forestry, sustainable agriculture, or sustainable fisheries is partly a matter of definition. If one person thinks sustainable forestry means a constant supply of wood products and the other thinks it means preserving diverse ecosystems, they have more work to do than either may realize.

So what does all this have to do with the subject matter of the course?

Four things to remember about concepts

Well, for starters, both science and technology are concepts, not things and if we don’t come to a common understanding of them pretty quickly, we aren’t going to get very far. I’ll begin by starting to conceptualize science in this lecture and then cover technology next time.

Second, conceptualizations are a foundation of scientific research and if you don’t understand them, it will be hard to understand what science is all about.

Third, ethical issues surrounding the development and uses of science and technology can be clarified and facilitated if we pay attention to conceptualization. Understanding another’s point of view includes understanding their definition of the concepts involved in the discussion.

Finally, I’d like us to keep the problem of concepts in mind during our discussions. Don’t assume that everyone else shares your mental image of all concepts and don’t assume that you always know what someone else means when they use a concept. I’m going to step in when necessary and ask you to define your concepts if it helps to clarify an argument or avoid a disagreement. We don’t all have to agree on a definition of a concept. The important thing is that we understand what others mean.