The lure of ethnography of science

Abstract

This articles compares the results which have come out of the exercise, peculiar to post-Kuhnian sociologists and anthropologists of science, of documenting everyday scientific practices - or what has been called "science-in-the-making" - with the results which came out of an analogous exercise, concerning art, undertook some decades earlier by the art historian Ernst Gombrich. I argue that whereas Gombrich was led to very auspicious results - his concern with what could be called "art-in-the-making" has allowed him to explain how different styles of pictorial representation are formed and how they evolve -, the post-kuhnian sociologists and anthropologists were led to nothing but a tasteless chronicle of science. I discuss the reason of both, the success of the first and the failure of the latter.