Authors
Abstract
The author of the present paper argues that while trying to explain the institutional success of the science and its broad social impact, it is worth throwing aside the arguments concerning the universal traits of human nature, changes in the human mentality, or transformation of the culture and civilization, such as the development of capitalism or bureaucratic power. In the 16th century no new man emerged, and no mutants with overgrown brains work in modern laboratories. So one must also reject the Great Divide between the cultures of the scientific and pre-scientific and replace it with multiple, uncertain and unexpected ‘not-so-great divides’, which can be described in meticulous anthropological studies. Although the achievements of science are certainly spectacular, and the gap between scientific practice and other areas of activity is so obvious, this does not mean that one must look for the “great” reasons behind this situation. One should rather focus on quite down-to-earth practices and tools used by scientists. A significant part of their activities can be described by referring to the craft of writing, reading and transforming of various types of inscriptions , and broadly understood visualization – their combining, performing, interpreting, confronting, comparing, shifting, shuffling etc. The important role of these tools and methods is especially visible in situations of scientific controversy. It is so because scientific controversies are won by the one able to muster on the spot the largest number of well aligned and faithful allies, and the technology of writing, printing and visualizing play a special role in mobilizing them. These are necessary to ensure that certain factors can be mobile – easy to move from place to place, and yet, immutable – not undergoing deformation as a result of the movement. This way, scientists are able to not only diffuse different types of factors relevant to the dispute and the process of constituting science, but also concentrate them in the centers of calculation, where, through accumulation, one can take actions not available elsewhere
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2012
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 51,447
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

“Genetic Load”: How the Architects of the Modern Synthesis Became Trapped in a Scientific Ideology.Alexandra Soulier - 2018 - Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science 4:118.

View all 10 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Wizualizacja i poznanie: zrysowywanie rzeczy razem.Bruno Latour - 2012 - Avant: Trends in Interdisciplinary Studies 3 (T).
Anthropology as Science and the Anthropology of Science and of Anthropology or Understanding and Explanation in the Social Sciences, Part II.I. C. Jarvie - 1984 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:745 - 763.
Multivariate Models of Scientific Change.Miriam Solomon - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:287 - 297.
Should the Role of Epistemology in Studying Scientific Knowledge Be Rethought?Mamchur Elena - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 43:117-120.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-01-31

Total views
29 ( #335,835 of 2,330,118 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
14 ( #41,660 of 2,330,118 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes