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)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Annamaria Carusi (2012). Making the Visual Visible in Philosophy of Science. Spontaneous Generations 6 (1):106-114.
Robert Wachbroit (1994). Normality as a Biological Concept. Philosophy of Science 61 (4):579-591.
Annamaria Carusi (2008). Scientific Visualisations and Aesthetic Grounds for Trust. Ethics and Information Technology 10 (4):243-254.
Dr Steven James Bartlett, Questioning the Standard of Normality: Steps to a More Effective Understanding of Mental Health.
Shu-Chen Li & Ulman Lindenberger (2002). Coconstructed Functionality Instead of Functional Normality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):761-762.
Kristin Zeiler (2007). Gyneacologists and Geneticists as Storytellers : Disease, Choice, and Normality as the Fabric of Narratives on Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis. In Sonja Olin-Lauritzen & Lars-Christer Hydén (eds.), Medical Technologies and the Life World: The Social Construction of Normality. Routledge.
Guy Kahane & Julian Savulescu (2012). The Concept of Harm and the Significance of Normality. Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (3):318.
Max Hocutt & Michael Levin (1999). The Bell Curve Case for Heredity. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 29 (3):389-415.
Gerhard Schurz (2001). Normische Gesetzeshypothesen Und Die Wissenschaftsphilosophische Bedeutung Des Nichtmonotonen Schliessens. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 32 (1):65-107.
Paul Horwitz (1996). Bell Curve? What Bell Curve? Science and Society 60 (2):204 - 206.
Sonja Olin Lauritzen & Lars-Christer Hydén (2007). Medical Technologies, the Lifeworld, and Normality : An Introduction. In Sonja Olin-Lauritzen & Lars-Christer Hydén (eds.), Medical Technologies and the Life World: The Social Construction of Normality. Routledge.
Gerhard Schurz (2001). What is 'Normal'? An Evolution-Theoretic Foundation for Normic Laws and Their Relation to Statistical Normality. Philosophy of Science 68 (4):476-497.
Added to index2011-09-12
Total downloads16 ( #81,690 of 722,765 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,765 )
How can I increase my downloads?