Visualisation and Cognition: Drawing Things Together

Avant: Trends in Interdisciplinary Studies 3 (T):207-260 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The author of the present paper argues that while trying to explain the institutional success of the science and its broad social impact, it is worth throwing aside the arguments concerning the universal traits of human nature, changes in the human mentality, or transformation of the culture and civilization, such as the development of capitalism or bureaucratic power. In the 16th century no new man emerged, and no mutants with overgrown brains work in modern laboratories. So one must also reject the Great Divide between the cultures of the scientific and pre-scientific and replace it with multiple, uncertain and unexpected ‘not-so-great divides’, which can be described in meticulous anthropological studies. Although the achievements of science are certainly spectacular, and the gap between scientific practice and other areas of activity is so obvious, this does not mean that one must look for the “great” reasons behind this situation. One should rather focus on quite down-to-earth practices and tools used by scientists. A significant part of their activities can be described by referring to the craft of writing, reading and transforming of various types of inscriptions , and broadly understood visualization – their combining, performing, interpreting, confronting, comparing, shifting, shuffling etc. The important role of these tools and methods is especially visible in situations of scientific controversy. It is so because scientific controversies are won by the one able to muster on the spot the largest number of well aligned and faithful allies, and the technology of writing, printing and visualizing play a special role in mobilizing them. These are necessary to ensure that certain factors can be mobile – easy to move from place to place, and yet, immutable – not undergoing deformation as a result of the movement. This way, scientists are able to not only diffuse different types of factors relevant to the dispute and the process of constituting science, but also concentrate them in the centers of calculation, where, through accumulation, one can take actions not available elsewhere

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,139

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Wizualizacja i poznanie: zrysowywanie rzeczy razem.Bruno Latour - 2012 - Avant: Trends in Interdisciplinary Studies 3 (T).
Anthropology as Science and the Anthropology of Science and of Anthropology or Understanding and Explanation in the Social Sciences, Part II.I. C. Jarvie - 1984 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:745 - 763.
Multivariate Models of Scientific Change.Miriam Solomon - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:287 - 297.
Should the Role of Epistemology in Studying Scientific Knowledge be Rethought?Mamchur Elena - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 43:117-120.
Scientific knowledge: a sociological analysis.Barry Barnes - 1996 - London: Athlone. Edited by David Bloor & John Henry.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-01-31

Downloads
222 (#86,071)

6 months
56 (#72,624)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Material Ordering and the Care of Things.David Pontille & Jérôme Denis - 2015 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 40 (3):338-367.
Expanding hermeneutics to the world of technology.Jure Zovko - 2023 - AI and Society 38 (6):2243-2254.
Transparency in search of a theory.Mark Fenster - 2015 - European Journal of Social Theory 18 (2):150-167.

View all 24 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references