Yes, that's what is wrong with the sociology of knowledge. It dances around the outside of knowledge, fascinated with the tangential and esoteric questions, like what was the name of the man who payed for it, ignorant of the substance of the thing itself, is it indeed knowledge, or is it just prejudice? Knowledge is the one thing that eludes the sociology of knowledge.
The baleful influence of the sociology of knowledge is all too evident on this list, where we have to dash to the holocaust for an example of something that is wrong, and then confuse that issue with the wholly unimportant question of eating meat (human and animal are not equivalent in morality) or cannot bring ourselves to say that selling snake oil is reprehensible?
And incidentally, where is the sociology of the sociology of knowledge? Where is the account of the social forces that brought the sociology of knowledge into being? Wouldn't that fix the sociology of knowledge firmly into the regulatory mechanisms of the military-academic complex? Aren't the ethics and oversight committees of college and government all outgrowths of the sociology of knowledge? (