[review about Nico Conti] "Do not I remember when did we have voted to authorize the Internet "
[Egan, 2007]
[Egan, 2007]
few weeks ago (April 29, 2010) to the Feltrinelli Bologna, I attended the presentation Assay "scientism and anti-science" by the author Massimiano Bucchi, a sociologist at the University of Trento.
I was immediately impressed by the argument of peel, as well as explaining that scientism and anti-science are the two faces of the same coin, with interesting examples showing that this was precisely why science and society today do not understand.
On that occasion I had not bought the book, as the presentation began at 18:00 and then had to dwell on an interesting debate and Feltrinelli had closed the cases.
But last weekend I was finally able to dedicate myself to read this short essay (p. 121) but full of ideas, concepts and insights (in my opinion useful for Laboratory Abnormalities).
Since the acknowledgments page I are found in good company because, among those with whom he discussed his theories, Bucchi includes scholars like Bruno Latour and Trevor Pinch, authors who had already been greatly appreciated.
Bucchi part by the widespread view that it is creating a growing gap between science and society, and vice versa, but it is his belief that rather than "deficit" of communication in the case of an excess of "complicity".
E 'own dissemination of scientism to generate a growing conflict between science and society.
On the one hand calling for a total membership of the society to the grounds of science (scientism), while the other is hoped that science becomes more sensitive to the reasons and instances of value-expressed by some social groups (the position associated with the term anti-science).
Bucchi defines this second position as "passive scientism", as it considers complementary to the first, and asserts that these are two extremes which share much more than you think or give us to understand, in other words they are just "two faces of the same coin that is contemporary scientism "(p.23).
to remain constant is the conception of science as "active" and of society as "passive." But this view has
second Bucchi another drawback: it tends to see science and society as an entity entirely separate and compartmentalized.
He demonstrates, with a considerable number of examples, such as scientism and stand also share an "institutional isomorphism", especially when eg. resort to the language of protest (languages \u200b\u200bconsidered in the past only the prerogative dell'antiscientismo).
In conclusion, the "Science", meant as rigidly monolithic structure is simply a reflection of the speech scientist in its two variants. Especially
neither extreme challenges schema that science advances and the company pursues, with some anxiety.
so it was probably for a long period where science was to convince a company that was braked in front of the application of new scientific discoveries, but then in the longer term will be adapted to new paradigms in other words, explains Bucchi, we worked well the metaphor of "science as a goose that lays the golden eggs" (p.75).
But those were times when the scientific community was very tight and cohesive, but now no longer the case.
We are facing a "multitechnological" Bucchi that leads to hypothesize the production of techno-scientific objects à la carte that correspond to the priorities moral, religious, cultural, economic and diverse community.
Eg. Some bioethicists have come to say that everyone is entitled to "choose its own definition of death" between the state permanent vegetative and cardiac arrest, in conclusion: "... it is in crisis, the general idea of \u200b\u200bunique choices, the result of sharing and consultation between scientists, government authorities, representatives of religious institutions and other stakeholders" (p .56).
Complicating the picture are witnessing the proliferation of expertise that can strengthen scientific hypotheses in clear opposition to each other: the existence of the ozone hole, goodness of nuclear energy, risks, GMO, etc. ..
Finally, Bucchi, are jumping the cornerstones of science communication and, consequently, the traditional distinctions between scientific debate and political discussion.
There is no membership past a rigid scientific paradigm, but the scientific knowledge that Bucchi describes as more and more like the definition of the philosopher Ludwik Fleck: "The ongoing movement of exchange between the specialist and popular circles of thought around a particular theme" (p.97 ).
Bucchi through his sociological analysis, sometimes complex but always pleasant, with a series of examples drawn from everyday life ("science show," "rhetoric of" scientism of environmentalists, a large majority of scientific definitions, multiplication of expertise , "liminal objects, etc.)..
Bucchi Maximian "scientism and anti-science. Why science and society do not understand " Intersections, Il Mulino, February 2010
I was immediately impressed by the argument of peel, as well as explaining that scientism and anti-science are the two faces of the same coin, with interesting examples showing that this was precisely why science and society today do not understand.
The presentation was present (along with Nicoletta Cavazza and moderator of the debate Elisabetta Tola) the well-known doctor from Bologna Carlo Flamigni, who had once labored to prove the existence of a true medical science as opposed to a false medical science , and so on, proving he does not read the reasoning of peel or not to have appreciated.
But on closer inspection his discourse on medicine "true", is somewhat further proof of the hypothesis about the Bucchi contemporary scientism. On that occasion I had not bought the book, as the presentation began at 18:00 and then had to dwell on an interesting debate and Feltrinelli had closed the cases.
But last weekend I was finally able to dedicate myself to read this short essay (p. 121) but full of ideas, concepts and insights (in my opinion useful for Laboratory Abnormalities).
Since the acknowledgments page I are found in good company because, among those with whom he discussed his theories, Bucchi includes scholars like Bruno Latour and Trevor Pinch, authors who had already been greatly appreciated.
Bucchi part by the widespread view that it is creating a growing gap between science and society, and vice versa, but it is his belief that rather than "deficit" of communication in the case of an excess of "complicity".
E 'own dissemination of scientism to generate a growing conflict between science and society.
On the one hand calling for a total membership of the society to the grounds of science (scientism), while the other is hoped that science becomes more sensitive to the reasons and instances of value-expressed by some social groups (the position associated with the term anti-science).
Bucchi defines this second position as "passive scientism", as it considers complementary to the first, and asserts that these are two extremes which share much more than you think or give us to understand, in other words they are just "two faces of the same coin that is contemporary scientism "(p.23).
to remain constant is the conception of science as "active" and of society as "passive." But this view has
second Bucchi another drawback: it tends to see science and society as an entity entirely separate and compartmentalized.
He demonstrates, with a considerable number of examples, such as scientism and stand also share an "institutional isomorphism", especially when eg. resort to the language of protest (languages \u200b\u200bconsidered in the past only the prerogative dell'antiscientismo).
In conclusion, the "Science", meant as rigidly monolithic structure is simply a reflection of the speech scientist in its two variants. Especially
neither extreme challenges schema that science advances and the company pursues, with some anxiety.
so it was probably for a long period where science was to convince a company that was braked in front of the application of new scientific discoveries, but then in the longer term will be adapted to new paradigms in other words, explains Bucchi, we worked well the metaphor of "science as a goose that lays the golden eggs" (p.75).
But those were times when the scientific community was very tight and cohesive, but now no longer the case.
We are facing a "multitechnological" Bucchi that leads to hypothesize the production of techno-scientific objects à la carte that correspond to the priorities moral, religious, cultural, economic and diverse community.
Eg. Some bioethicists have come to say that everyone is entitled to "choose its own definition of death" between the state permanent vegetative and cardiac arrest, in conclusion: "... it is in crisis, the general idea of \u200b\u200bunique choices, the result of sharing and consultation between scientists, government authorities, representatives of religious institutions and other stakeholders" (p .56).
Complicating the picture are witnessing the proliferation of expertise that can strengthen scientific hypotheses in clear opposition to each other: the existence of the ozone hole, goodness of nuclear energy, risks, GMO, etc. ..
Finally, Bucchi, are jumping the cornerstones of science communication and, consequently, the traditional distinctions between scientific debate and political discussion.
There is no membership past a rigid scientific paradigm, but the scientific knowledge that Bucchi describes as more and more like the definition of the philosopher Ludwik Fleck: "The ongoing movement of exchange between the specialist and popular circles of thought around a particular theme" (p.97 ).
Bucchi through his sociological analysis, sometimes complex but always pleasant, with a series of examples drawn from everyday life ("science show," "rhetoric of" scientism of environmentalists, a large majority of scientific definitions, multiplication of expertise , "liminal objects, etc.)..
Bucchi Maximian "scientism and anti-science. Why science and society do not understand " Intersections, Il Mulino, February 2010
