Most scientists think that they know how science works. You take a theory, make a prediction and then do an experiment to test your hypothesis. At least that is the image that most scientists tend to project to the public. But science is rarely so clear-cut. Scientists are also affected by social factors; their choice of research depends on which topics are flavour of the month, which theories are in fashion and even whether a referee happened to like their last paper.

So how do scientists agree about what counts as truth? How do people decide what is to be called “knowledge”? And what is a valid scientific method? These are some of the questions that a relatively obscure band of sociologists and philosophers have been mulling over for the past 25 years. Known as the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK), the subject is part of a broader discipline called science and technology studies. Its practitioners try to answer these questions by examining case histories from science, without taking a stance on whether the science itself is correct. Those doing SSK have, for example, examined how physicists earlier this century measured the speed of light to test Einstein’s special theory of relativity. They analyse historical events as if they were there at the time, taking on board all the doubts and uncertainties of the age.

All this may sound harmless enough. But when some scientists – mainly physicists – started to notice what the sociologists were saying, they were appalled to find that the conventional view of science as a search for ultimate truths about the universe appeared to be under threat. Prominent physicists began to attack sociologists, angry at the apparent subversion of scientists’ cherished beliefs. However, the “science wars” remained quite restrained until last year, when Alan Sokal, a physicist from New York University, published a deliberately meaningless paper in a journal called Social Text. Sokal’s article parodied what he saw as the absurd statements, false erudition and sloppy thinking of some modern sociologists and philosophers. When he revealed his hoax in another article a few weeks later, all hell broke loose.

Sociologists complained that Sokal had misinterpreted their comments and taken them out of context. In an attempt to call a truce in the science wars, Harry Collins, a sociology professor from Southampton University in the UK, hosted a “science peace” workshop at the end of July. Scientists at the meeting soon made it clear that they were happy to admit that science is a human endeavour, that merits rigorous social analysis. “There’s no question that social phenomena of all sorts play a role in the creation of science, ” said Kurt Gottfried, a theoretical high-energy physicist from Cornell University in the US. But what upsets scientists – as one delegate pointed out – is when sociologists argue that science is just another social practice that produces myths which are no more valid than anyone else’s.

Trevor Pinch, who has taught science studies at Cornell for the past seven years, tried to explain why sociologists do not like the idea of the mythical scientist. He said they prefer to see science as a type of expertise. “Scientific experts are skilful practitioners, like potters, carpenters or plumbers, ” explained Pinch, who has a PhD in physics. “We’re not saying that science is like plumbing or carpentry, rather that the right model for thinking about the nature of science in relation to its public is [as] a body of expertise, carried out by expert-leading practitioners. Science should be accorded all the attention and respect we give other groups in society.” His view was supported by Collins, who pledged: “I desperately want to undermine the image of science as a complete and exhaustive account of the world.”

Although many scientists would probably agree that cannot explain everything, they do believe that it can provide ultimate truths about the universe, and they would be bemused to hear that it is no more than a body of expertise. They also argue that to work out how society influences science, you actually have to study the content of the scientific theories themselves. Gottfried tried to get to the nub of the argument. If knowledge is a social construct – in other words, if society, rather than nature, is the cause of scientific beliefs – why can scientific theories make predictions about nature that are often so spectacularly successful? David Bloor, a sociologist from Edinburgh University, took up the challenge. “[Scientists] are responding to nature through and by virtue of society, ” he revealed. “If I’m right, it’s a failure to grasp that that’s actually causing a lot of trouble in the science wars.”

When David Mermin, a solid-state physicist from Cornell and a key protagonist in the science wars, got to his feet, peace appeared to break out – momentarily, at least. “I find myself in agreement with everything David Bloor says, ” he announced. But the delicate consensus quickly fell apart, as Mermin went on to explain his unease. He said that sociologists tend to mischaracterize how science is done, because they fail to appreciate how cautious and conservative scientists are when they test their theories. Jay Labinger, a chemist from the California Institute of Technology, also pointed out those who do SSK tend to limit themselves to a few selected case-histories, before making sweeping generalizations about the whole of science. His other complaint was that they cannot agree on their own methodology, while at the same time criticizing how science operates.

But do the science wars actually matter? Sociologists like Collins and Pinch worry that the public sees only the mythical view of science, and then does not understand things when the human side of science leaks out. Others like Sokal, who was not at the meeting, feel that the attitude of some sociologists and philosophers signifies a growing hollowness of intellectual thought. And as Steve Miller, a planetary physicist and science communicator from University College London pointed out at the meeting, many scientists worry that SSK is undermining the rational, logical world-picture of science. “They fear that if this process is not stopped, it could open the backdoor to superstitious, magical interpretations of the world, ” argued Miller.

And as a sign of how seriously some take the science wars, Pinch told the meeting that he recently received his first piece of anonymous hate-mail.