The continuing relevance of Ludwik Fleck’s work, above its status as a classic in science studies, lies in his reflexive conceptualisation of an open epistemology. As early as 1929, in the midst of a broad debate about a ‘crisis’ of science, Fleck offered a socio-historical analysis of the widely assumed crisis in form of an epistemology. He presented his argument, which was in itself an interrogation of the metaphysical foundations of science, as a reflexive and political intervention to this debate. (...) His book of 1935, Genesis and development of a scientific fact, in which he developed the notion of the thought collective, can be read in a similar vein as a functional analysis of science under National Socialism. His traumatic experiences during this period fostered his drive for science, democracy and epistemology. When he returned to the epistemological debate in 1946, he sharpened the presentation of his argument, presenting it rhetorically as an ironic political dialogue. This surprising text unfolds as an epistemological intervention by a participant observer. In this respect, Fleck’s epistemology, combining the historical analysis with reflexive intervention, is still a message in a bottle. (shrink)

In Search of Lost Culture: From Neuroimaging via Critical Neuroscience to Cultural Neuroscience – and back to Critique. The availability of new technologies for visualizing brain activity generated great expectations to identify the centers responsible for human action and behavior and to “reduce” all mental processes to neuronal states. Some scientists even called society to adapt to the new insights from brain research by giving up outdated concepts of autonomy and free will. This project spurred harsh critiques from philosophy, sociology, (...) and cultural studies, diagnosing the rise of a new phrenology. A critical neuroscience group took up these criticisms and pledged for a more nuanced reflection about the political, historical and ethical contexts and implications of current neuroscience and argued for an integration of societal concerns into the research agenda – rather similar to the agenda for responsible research of the EU. With the development of more sophisticated visualization strategies, new sub‐disciplines emerged, integrating sociocultural aspects into neuroimaging. Social and cultural neuroscience replaced overstated reductionist claims without leaving the overarching naturalist epistemology, but extending the ontological realm. New research objects such as empathy, religion or ‘Western’ vs. ‘East‐Asian’ attitudes of thinking started to populate the research domain. Especially cultural neuroscience was widely celebrated as new scientific bridge across the nature‐culture gulf. A closer look, however, reveals that this claim and the popular success of cultural neuroscience are based on a decisive lack of conceptual clarity. ‘Culture’ functions as fuzzy denominator for a broad range of social phenomena with unknown links to neurophysiological processes but visualized as brain states. Instead of implementing more reflexive forms of research, cultural neuroscience stabilizes problematic stereotypes and racist attitudes by an expansion of neuro‐culture. In light of this deflation of interdisciplinary cooperation a more radical critique of this ideology seems in place. (shrink)

Challenged by the spread of alternative facts science institutions now call for ›facts without alternatives‹. Time and again the critique of science is partly being held responsible for the current news crisis. The ongoing debate not only choses to ignore the historic-epistemological contingency of modern science, it also remains ignorant of its linguistic constitution and media-dependency. Ideally, in order to answer this challenge society needs a critique of science that includes a media-theoretical approach. Because both science and media are part (...) of the realities in which we live. (shrink)

Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Volume 45, Issue 3, Page 415-427, September 2022.

Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Volume 45, Issue 3, Page 415-427, September 2022.

Herausgefordert durch die Verbreitung von alternative facts, fordern Wissenschaftsinstitutionen die Anerkennung ›alternativloser Fakten‹. Dabei wird die Wissenschaftskritik häufig als Mitschuldiger für die Krise ausgemacht. Die Debatte verkennt nicht nur die historisch-epistemologische Kontingenz neuzeitlicher Wissenschaft, sondern ist ignorant gegenüber der sprachlichen Verfasstheit und Medienabhängigkeit von Wissenschaft. Um auf diese Herausforderungen zu antworten, braucht die Gesellschaft dagegen eine medientheoretisch erweiterte Wissenschaftskritik. Denn Wissenschaft und Medien gehören zu den Wirklichkeiten, in denen wir leben. Challenged by the spread of alternative facts science institutions now (...) call for ›facts without alternatives‹. Time and again the critique of science is partly being held responsible for the current news crisis. The ongoing debate not only choses to ignore the historic-epistemological contingency of modern science, it also remains ignorant of its linguistic constitution and media-dependency. Ideally, in order to answer this challenge society needs a critique of science that includes a media-theoretical approach. Because both science and media are part of the realities in which we live. (shrink)

The neurosciences seem to thrive on the constantly postponed promise to herald a definitive understanding of the human mind. What are the dynamics of this promise and its postponement? The long and fascinating history of the neurosciences offers ample material for looking into the articulation of neuroscientific research and contemporary culture. New tools and research methods, often announced as breakthroughs, brought along new representations of brain activity. In addition, they shaped the way of conceptualizing the brain’s mode of operation even (...) where they failed to meet the high expectations initially kindled. Rather than arriving at a definitive and final understanding of human nature by solving the riddle of the human brain, the neurosciences appear to operate as active interfaces mobilizing human societies to ever new research endeavors. (shrink)