Abstract

Science is sometimes depicted, both in scholarly and lay accounts, as a consensual and orderly progression in the direction of truth; at other times, it is portrayed as an arena in which lone geniuses struggle against rivals and authorities to impose unconventional interpretations of reality. The paper introduces the concept of ‘order-conflict dichotomy’ to stabilize the content of these definitions. It then shows, through an in-depth analysis of the Irving trial, an English libel suit involving historical knowledge about World War II and the Holocaust, how these definitions can be used as rhetorical devices to promote professional and situational goals. Six couples of opposing sub-definitions of science are identified by analyzing court records. As a tentative hypothesis derived from the case, it is argued that the conception of science actors deploy in this kind of controversies reflect the overall structure of the market for knowledge about nature and society rather than disciplinary culture.