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

Boaz Miller
Zefat Academic College
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.
Keywords popularization  distortion  science and media  social epistemology  computer science  mathematical proof  sociology of scientific knowledge
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,323
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

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.

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

How to balance Balanced Reporting and Reliable Reporting.Mikkel Gerken - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (10):3117-3142.

Add more citations

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 index

Total views
41 ( #261,487 of 2,448,736 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #301,105 of 2,448,736 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes