In praise of futile gestures: How scientific is the sociology of scientific knowledge?

Calls for sociologists of knowledge to be committed to their subjects are examined critically. The idea of 'commitment to commitment' is shown to be based either on fallacious reasoning or on a disguised call for commitment to the author's favoured causes. The 'universal' end 'local inevitability' arguments are analyzed and shown to be wrong. The former suggests that every scientific claim includes a commitment, willy-nilly; the latter says that analysts will be 'captured', whether they like it or not. A particular case of the reception of a case study of a controversy is described; the reception of this case went against expectations, and some speculations are offered about the cause. Instances where the subject of a sociological study is also the object of study are looked at Finally, good reasons for commitment are set out: one thing that the sociologist of science should engage in is 'analytic critique of science: and this involves commitment.