Based on the differences and disputes between Kuhn and sociology of scientific knowledge, this paper attempts to restore the ideological context from Kuhn to sociology of scientific knowledge. There are two interwoven threads in this ideological thread: first, the research perspective has changed from "historical turn" to "social turn"; Secondly, from the expansion of "* * * valuable" to "social interest" in scientific research, this paper is the expansion and deepening of these two clues. This paper consists of two parts: introduction and text. The introduction introduces the significance of studying the ideological relationship between Kuhn and sociology of scientific knowledge and the research status at home and abroad, and insists that although the research in this field at home and abroad has achieved fruitful results, the "real philosophical challenge" of Kuhn's "historical turn" needs further exploration and explanation. The text consists of three parts. The first part introduces the main schools and viewpoints of sociology of scientific knowledge, and classifies and summarizes relativism of sociology of scientific knowledge. Finally, the ideological roots of sociology of popularizing scientific knowledge are further discussed.
The second part mainly discusses the relationship between Kuhn's scientific historicism and sociology of scientific knowledge. The thought of sociology of scientific knowledge is deeply influenced by the proposition of "incommensurability" and "lack of certainty" of the paradigm. Under the influence of Kuhn's "incommensurability" thought, the sociology of scientific knowledge put forward the relativism of epistemology.
On the basis of epistemological relativism, they turned the perspective of scientific research from the macro historical level to the micro social level, thus claiming that they started the "social turn" of scientific philosophy research. Correspondingly, they also developed the relativism thought of methodology from Kuhn's holistic theory evaluation view and related "insufficient determinacy" proposition. In this methodological relativism, they extended Kuhn's "* * * valuable" in theoretical evaluation to "social power" and "social consultation" in theoretical evaluation. Sociology of scientific knowledge, like Kuhn, holds anti-realism thoughts. Although they came to this view in different ways, there is no doubt that they all adhere to ontological relativism. The third part restores and reconstructs Kuhn's main thoughts, and on this basis, examines the interpretation of Kuhn's thoughts by sociology of scientific knowledge. Through the restoration of Kuhn's "historical turn", we find that "historical turn" brings "time" into the understanding of science, and science presents us with a historical and dynamic development picture. Kuhn compared the development and change of science with the evolution of biology, and thought that the "incommensurability" of paradigm did not mean denying the progress of science. He introduced the ideas of biological evolution and ecology into the understanding of science, so that we can clearly see the role of social factors in the process of scientific development. In the restoration of Kuhn's holism, we find that his thought does not necessarily lead to relativism of methodology. The development of sociology of scientific knowledge is largely based on the over-interpretation of Kuhn's thought, which is embodied in their deconstruction and misuse of the propositions of "incommensurability" and "decisive deficiency". The expansion from "* * * valuable" in scientific evaluation to "social interests" has split scientific identity into countless small groups, which constantly argue with each other because of social interests. The achievement of scientific knowledge is only the product of power struggle and interest compromise. This conclusion is obviously contrary to Kuhn's ideological demands. The thought of sociology of scientific knowledge is based on the deconstruction and misuse of Kuhn's thought and its closely related "incommensurability" proposition and "insufficient decisiveness" proposition. Through the reduction and interpretation of these two propositions, sociology of scientific knowledge will lose its own foundation and eventually collapse!