What Does it Mean that PRIMES is in P: Popularization and Distortion Revisited

Social Studies of Science 39 (2):257-288 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX


In August 2002, three Indian computer scientists published a paper, ‘PRIMES is in P’, online. It presents a ‘deterministic algorithm’ which determines in ‘polynomial time’ if a given number is a prime number. The story was quickly picked up by the general press, and by this means spread through the scientific community of complexity theorists, where it was hailed as a major theoretical breakthrough. This is although scientists regarded the media reports as vulgar popularizations. When the paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal only two years later, the three scientists had already received wide recognition for their accomplishment. Current sociological theory challenges the ability to clearly distinguish on independent epistemic grounds between distorted and non-distorted scientific knowledge. It views the demarcation lines between such forms of presentation as contextual and unstable. In my paper, I challenge this view. By systematically surveying the popular press coverage of the ‘PRIMES is in P’ affair, I argue--against the prevailing new orthodoxy--that distorted simplifications of scientific knowledge are distinguishable from non-distorted simplifications on independent epistemic grounds. I argue that in the ‘PRIMES is in P’ affair, the three scientists could ride on the wave of the general press-distorted coverage of their algorithm, while counting on their colleagues’ ability to distinguish genuine accounts from distorted ones. Thus, their scientific reputation was unharmed. This suggests that the possibility of the existence of independent epistemic standards must be incorporated into the new SSK model of popularization.



External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Scientific realism: An elaboration and a defence.Howard Sankey - 2001 - Theoria A Journal of Social and Political Theory 98 (98):35-54.
Three paradigms of computer science.Amnon H. Eden - 2007 - Minds and Machines 17 (2):135-167.
The knowledge content of science and the sociology of scientific knowledge.Loet Leydesdorff - 1992 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 23 (2):241-263.
Toward a sociology of epistemic things.David Bloor - 2005 - Perspectives on Science 13 (3):285-312.
Who has scientific knowledge?K. Brad Wray - 2007 - Social Epistemology 21 (3):337 – 347.
The possibility of a mathematical sociology of scientific communication.Loet Leydesdorff - 1996 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 27 (2):243-265.


Added to PP

49 (#241,000)

6 months
6 (#132,512)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Boaz Miller
Zefat Academic College

References found in this work

Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics.Peter Galison (ed.) - 1997 - University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach.Jeffrey S. Poland - 1988 - Philosophical Review 100 (4):653-656.
Explaining Science.Ronald Giere - 1991 - Noûs 25 (3):386-388.
Social Empiricism.Miriam Solomon - 2001 - Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

View all 20 references / Add more references