Shani Inbar, Eva Jablonka, Simona Ginsburg, Anna Zeligowski
{"title":"Common sense, scientific images, and the aesthetic mode of knowing.","authors":"Shani Inbar, Eva Jablonka, Simona Ginsburg, Anna Zeligowski","doi":"10.1007/s40656-025-00697-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In modern English, common sense refers to an intuitive capacity to grasp self-evident truths and make judgments that require no special training or expertise. Although often treated as universal and ahistorical, its standing as an epistemic authority, especially within the sciences, has been contested, revised, and reconfigured over the past two centuries. Yet scientists' assumptions about the reliability of common sense typically remain implicit, embedded in a normative background that is rarely examined but quietly guides scientific thought. This paper examines how different attitudes toward common sense are reflected in the aesthetic choices and visual references scientists use. Through three case studies-Ernst Haeckel, Conrad Waddington, and Ginsburg & Jablonka-we demonstrate how their respective views, firmly rooted in their historical context, are made accessible through their aesthetic choices. Examining these choices reveals that scientific images, particularly those with artistic qualities, do more than depict scientific knowledge; they reflect underlying normative commitments, shaping what is seen as intelligible and scientifically meaningful. They are sites where scientific sensibilities and epistemic commitments become visible and available for critique. Drawing on Kant's notion of sensus communis, we suggest that aesthetic judgments, particularly of scientific representations, provide a reflective standpoint from which such implicit commitments can be evaluated.</p>","PeriodicalId":56308,"journal":{"name":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","volume":"47 4","pages":"47"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12511128/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-025-00697-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In modern English, common sense refers to an intuitive capacity to grasp self-evident truths and make judgments that require no special training or expertise. Although often treated as universal and ahistorical, its standing as an epistemic authority, especially within the sciences, has been contested, revised, and reconfigured over the past two centuries. Yet scientists' assumptions about the reliability of common sense typically remain implicit, embedded in a normative background that is rarely examined but quietly guides scientific thought. This paper examines how different attitudes toward common sense are reflected in the aesthetic choices and visual references scientists use. Through three case studies-Ernst Haeckel, Conrad Waddington, and Ginsburg & Jablonka-we demonstrate how their respective views, firmly rooted in their historical context, are made accessible through their aesthetic choices. Examining these choices reveals that scientific images, particularly those with artistic qualities, do more than depict scientific knowledge; they reflect underlying normative commitments, shaping what is seen as intelligible and scientifically meaningful. They are sites where scientific sensibilities and epistemic commitments become visible and available for critique. Drawing on Kant's notion of sensus communis, we suggest that aesthetic judgments, particularly of scientific representations, provide a reflective standpoint from which such implicit commitments can be evaluated.
期刊介绍:
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences is an interdisciplinary journal committed to providing an integrative approach to understanding the life sciences. It welcomes submissions from historians, philosophers, biologists, physicians, ethicists and scholars in the social studies of science. Contributors are expected to offer broad and interdisciplinary perspectives on the development of biology, biomedicine and related fields, especially as these perspectives illuminate the foundations, development, and/or implications of scientific practices and related developments. Submissions which are collaborative and feature different disciplinary approaches are especially encouraged, as are submissions written by senior and junior scholars (including graduate students).