We Have Never Been Anti-Science: Reflections on Science Wars and Post-Truth

IF 1 Q3 SOCIAL ISSUES
M. Lynch
{"title":"We Have Never Been Anti-Science: Reflections on Science Wars and Post-Truth","authors":"M. Lynch","doi":"10.17351/ests2020.309","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay addresses the so-called \"post-truth\" era in which scientific evidence of, for example, climate change, is given little weight compared to more immediate appeals to emotion and belief, and examines the relationship of alleged anti-science and populist irrationality to left- and right-wing political alignments.  It also addresses charges of anti-science that were once leveled at Science and Technology Studies (STS) itself, and particularly in relation to the “symmetrical” posture taken toward scientific controversies.  Recently, \"symmetry\" in STS has been linked to the media conventions and argumentative strategies that have sustained controversies over climate change and other health and safety concerns.  This essay argues that \"symmetry\" was originally set up in a circumscribed way to encourage research on controversies, but that it does not amount to a general conclusion to the effect that science is no different from any other system of belief.  Instead, an effort to pursue \"symmetrical\" research on scientific controversies can document how, far from being displaced from all relevance, scientific authority and its institutional supports are being duplicated along parallel tracks which sustain disputes and delay concerted action.","PeriodicalId":44976,"journal":{"name":"Engaging Science Technology and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Engaging Science Technology and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2020.309","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

Abstract

This essay addresses the so-called "post-truth" era in which scientific evidence of, for example, climate change, is given little weight compared to more immediate appeals to emotion and belief, and examines the relationship of alleged anti-science and populist irrationality to left- and right-wing political alignments.  It also addresses charges of anti-science that were once leveled at Science and Technology Studies (STS) itself, and particularly in relation to the “symmetrical” posture taken toward scientific controversies.  Recently, "symmetry" in STS has been linked to the media conventions and argumentative strategies that have sustained controversies over climate change and other health and safety concerns.  This essay argues that "symmetry" was originally set up in a circumscribed way to encourage research on controversies, but that it does not amount to a general conclusion to the effect that science is no different from any other system of belief.  Instead, an effort to pursue "symmetrical" research on scientific controversies can document how, far from being displaced from all relevance, scientific authority and its institutional supports are being duplicated along parallel tracks which sustain disputes and delay concerted action.
我们从来没有反科学:对科学战争和后真理的反思
这篇文章探讨了所谓的“后真相”时代,在这个时代,例如气候变化的科学证据与更直接的情感和信仰诉求相比,几乎没有得到重视,并考察了所谓的反科学和民粹主义非理性与左翼和右翼政治结盟的关系。它还解决了曾经对科学技术研究(STS)本身提出的反科学指控,特别是对科学争议采取的“对称”姿态。最近,STS中的“对称性”与媒体惯例和辩论策略有关,这些惯例和策略在气候变化和其他健康和安全问题上持续存在争议。本文认为,“对称性”最初是以一种有限的方式建立的,以鼓励对争议的研究,但它并不等于一个普遍的结论,即科学与任何其他信仰体系都没有什么不同。相反,对科学争议进行“对称”研究的努力可以记录科学权威及其机构支持是如何沿着平行的轨道重复的,而不是偏离所有相关性,从而维持争议并推迟一致行动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
5.60%
发文量
23
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信