David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Communication is a crucial component of scientific activity (as of virtually any other domain of human activity, especially in this "communication age" in which we live). As researchers and as citizens, we should all be concerned with the communication of science as well as with communication within science. In this paper, I will deal with one of the key aspects of this topic ג€“ the question whether scientific communication is or should be ג€�transparentג€�. The view that this is or should be the case is often taken for granted both by scientists and the general public. I will challenge this view and suggest that we should learn to live without the illusion that scientific communication is or should be transparent. This idea is closely related, if not derived from, the traditional epistemological conception according to which scientific method is the privileged tool we have for penetrating beyond appearances and discovering the true ג€�nature of thingsג€�, in terms of which all observable phenomena should be ultimately explained. Applying the scientific method should, thus, yield a fully intelligible representation of the world, which in its turn should be transparently communicable. The trouble with this enticing ideal is that it does not correspond to actual practice. Again and again we experience the fact that the ג€�true picture of the worldג€� remains veiled for everyone but a small group of initiated experts in a narrow domain. Is this only a technical problem having to do with the phenomenon of specialization and with the inevitable complexity of the language(s) of science, as it is often suggested?
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Loet Leydesdorff (1996). The Possibility of a Mathematical Sociology of Scientific Communication. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 27 (2):243-265.
Hsin-I. Liu (2007). How Is Communication Possible? The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 6:51-56.
Arjo Klamer & Hendrik P. Van Dalen (2002). Attention and the Art of Scientific Publishing. Journal of Economic Methodology 9 (3):289-315.
Edward Manier (1986). Problems in the Development of Cognitive Neuroscience: Effective Communication Between Scientific Domains. Philosophy of Science 1986:183 - 197.
Niclas Rönnström (2011). Cosmopolitan Communication and the Broken Dream of a Common Language. Educational Philosophy and Theory 43 (3):260-282.
Song Tian, Science Fans: A Basic Description and Analysis of the Emergence of a Pseudoscience Movement in China.
H. W. Love (1992). Communication, Accountability and Professional Discourse: The Interaction of Language Values and Ethical Values. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 11 (11):883-892.
Melissa A. Cook & Annette Holba (eds.) (2008). Philosophies of Communication: Implications for Everyday Experience. Peter Lang.
Gerhard Chroust (2003). E-Teaching-Panacea or Crisis? World Futures 59 (1):51 – 62.
Scott R. Stroud (2007). Dewey on Art as Evocative Communication. Education and Culture 23 (2):pp. 6-26.
Fee-Alexandra Haase, 'States of the Common and the Unique': An Introduction to a General Functional Communication Theory.
David Ludwig (forthcoming). Extended Cognition in Science Communication. Public Understanding of Science.
Guichun Guo (2007). The Methodological Significance of Scientific Metaphor. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 2 (3):437-453.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads9 ( #148,126 of 1,096,448 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #134,922 of 1,096,448 )
How can I increase my downloads?