Christopher P. Toumey
Auteur de Conjuring Science: Scientific Symbols and Cultural Meanings in American Life
Œuvres de Christopher P. Toumey
Étiqueté
Partage des connaissances
- Sexe
- male
Membres
Critiques
Statistiques
- Œuvres
- 2
- Membres
- 59
- Popularité
- #280,813
- Évaluation
- 4.4
- Critiques
- 1
- ISBN
- 6
Toumey argues that Americans believe science serves as proof of cultural authority. He writes, “This theory, that science enhanced democracy, consisted largely of a style of thinking: when American intellectuals were optimistic about the quality of life, they included science within that spirit of optimism” (pg. 35). Further, “A fundamental premise of political culture holds that an informed electorate is a necessary condition for democracy. But the premise is moot if scientific authority is invoked to help resolve an issue but the scientific literacy of the electorate is too shallow to comprehend that authority” (pg. 40). Toumey continues, “If the popular symbols of science are available to be borrowed, stolen, distorted, and manipulated by causes and ideologies unconnected to the substance of science, then what are the nonscientific meanings of science that are made manifest by the symbols of science?” (pg. 57). He answers, “Science is believed to be objective, nonpartisan, and able to fix the worst of our social problems (and without upsetting our social structure!), even while the intellectual content of scientific knowledge and reasoning is not particularly relevant to this power of science” (pg. 58).
Discussing the impact of the media on public perceptions, Toumey writes, “If at first they took it for granted that science had a certain intellectual integrity, that science was united within one combination of knowledge and values, they learned instead that science was available to be picked apart so as to support both sides in a polarized scientific controversy” (pg. 80). Further, “It is hardly the fault of the journalists that some scientists considered cold fusion a fait accompli, thereby holding themselves to lower standards of proof, while their more skeptical colleagues adhered to higher standards. But priority has its own credibility. The believers seized the priority, and the doubters found that careful science carried a greater burden of proof than hasty science in the court of public opinion” (pg. 105). Discussing the role of popular culture, “Mad scientist stories, as exercises in antirationalism, must challenge the belief that just because this stuff is scientific, it must be valuable. Yet they cannot claim that the equipment itself is evil, for antirationalism, especially Gothic horror, locates evil in the human heart…Consider the experiments, the labs, the drugs, and the rays of the mad scientists. The physical artifacts of their science are presented as the miscellaneous material junk of alchemists, illogically connected and barely justified” (pg. 130).
Toumey concludes, “The usual symbols of science – curvaceous microscopes, humming computer screens, latinate diplomas, and images such as that of the cold fusion flask – are vulnerable to being expropriated by causes and ideologies that have little or nothing to do with science. The result is that various movements, parties, and interest groups can bestow the plenary authority of science on their own private meanings” (pg. 151).… (plus d'informations)