Imaginary friends and concepts in science

I was educated (or more accurately inculcated) into the social theory, the history, and the philosophy of science in Another Time. 1970s through to 1990s, to be clear. And as you slowly become a member of your field, your field’s culture, and of this or that dominant school within your field, you gain a comfortable familiarity with terms and their uses, with the dominant interests, and most of all the agreed authorities, you become a professional yourself.

In general, though, one is a professional at the cutting edge of the epistemic mines for only a while, and that in your youth. As you inevitably age, more and more new terms arrive and become fashionable to use as subtitles in papers and on books to “show” how in the middle of the game you really are playing. And like a parent whose children have grown past your own tastes as a youngish adult you are eventually no longer plugged into the fads and vibrant scenes. You must rely on the young to give you the vocabulary that signals your continued relevance, or at least a painted canvas to announce your relevance. It often doesn’t end well.

For me, there are numerous words, words that originated in some eclectic and abstruse domain, usually not even in my field, that I must use to be hip, and I simply do not know them well enough to get away with using them. One such word is imaginaries. It has popped up in history and social theory contexts for a couple of decades now, although like all such neologisms it has far deeper roots. I have seen it repeated in the sociology of science and technology (SST), but recently I attended a talk by a foreign exponent of medical humanities (British) which used it extensively (and without definition, as if we all knew what it meant), and it left me in a state of mild confusion and mental hurt. Okay, I’m pushing 70 but even so, I have to discuss this a bit. If you want an overview not mediated by an agěd agěd grump, check the Wikipedia piece.

This will follow the Rule of Three, and have three parts. And if this schema doesn’t work, at least you’ll know I triad.

1. The genealogies of “imaginary”

2. What “it” “means”

3. Holisms and science