Norming Normality: On Scientific Fictions and Canonical Visualisations

Medicine Studies 3 (1):41-52 (2011)
Abstract
Taking the visual appeal of the ‘bell curve’ as an example, this paper discusses in how far the availability of quantitative approaches (here: statistics) that comes along with representational standards immediately affects qualitative concepts of scientific reasoning (here: normality). Within the realm of this paper I shall focus on the relationship between normality, as defined by scientific enterprise, and normativity, that result out of the very processes of standardisation itself. Two hypotheses are guiding this analysis: (1) normality, as it is defined by the natural and the life sciences, must be regarded as an ontological, but epistemological important fiction and (2) standardised, canonical visualisations (such as the ‘bell curve’) impact on scientific thinking and reasoning to a significant degree. I restrict my analysis to the epistemological function of scientific representations of data: This means identifying key strategies of producing graphs and images in scientific practice. As a starting point, it is crucial to evaluate to what degree graphs and images could be seen as guiding scientific reasoning itself, for instance in attributing to them a certain epistemological function within a given field of research
Keywords Normality  Normalisation  Bell curve  Representation  Visualisation  Canonical icon  Epistemology  Image science
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,357
External links
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA
    Megan Delehanty (2010). Why Images? Medicine Studies 2 (3):161-173.
    Ian Hacking (1990). The Taming of Chance. Cambridge University Press.
    Roger Krohn (1991). Why Are Graphs so Central in Science? Biology and Philosophy 6 (2):181-203.
    William C. Wimsatt (1990). Taming the Dimensions-Visualizations in Science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:111 - 135.
    Citations of this work BETA

    No citations found.

    Similar books and articles
    Max Hocutt & Michael Levin (1999). The Bell Curve Case for Heredity. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 29 (3):389-415.
    Paul Horwitz (1996). Bell Curve? What Bell Curve? Science and Society 60 (2):204 - 206.
    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2011-09-12

    Total downloads

    21 ( #68,721 of 1,088,784 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    5 ( #20,069 of 1,088,784 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.