Witti-Buch2 2001.qxd - Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society

Finitism and Symmetry
Jonas Larsson
The Strong Programme of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge is more often than not
discussed on the basis of its four methodological theses: causality, impartiality,
symmetry and reflexivity. However, a closer reading of the works of David Bloor and
Barry Barnes displays the significance of the hitherto much neglected thesis of finitism.
These advocates of the Strong Programme are interested in finitism, which primarily is
a thesis in the philosophy of language, because of its significance for the sociology of
knowledge. The present paper investigates the significance of finitism with respect to
concept application. It is fruitful to begin by examining Bloor's critique of rationalism.
Bloor on Rationalism
According to Bloor's paper Rationalism, Supernaturalism and the Sociology of
Knowledge, the main problem with rationalism is its false belief that rules or concepts
can be assigned explanatory status:
Rationalism seems plausible because we think that rules and meanings furnish
us with invisible rails which reach ahead of behaviour, giving guidance to those
rational enough to intuit their presence. But we cannot make concepts or rules
explain the activity of concept or rule users. It is the activity of the users, their
habits and goals, which explain why a concept or rule is applied in the way it is.
(1988: 69)
In order to understand why the explanatory status of rules and concepts are of
importance to the Strong Programme, the asymmetry of rationalism must be taken into
account. Think for example about rational explanations of theory choice. Rationalists
commonly assume that a scientist, in so far as s/he intends to choose the
epistemologically superior theory, acts in accordance with the acknowledged principles
of comparison and the available data and thereby makes correct judgements (with
respect to the epistemic merits of the competing theories). One the other hand, if the
scientist does intend to choose the superior theory but acts contrary to the principles of
13