In 2019 the first neutrons will be fired at the ESS plant, at least to its present plan, located in the outskirts of Lund, the brightest neutron facility in the world. In the scientists’ self-images, this kind of high technology and international cooperative knowledge production is entitled Big Science or Global Science. The concept “technoscience” isn’t used. This chapter will discuss if the concept technoscience makes aspects visible of 21st-century knowledge production that the other labels excludes. My claim is that (...) it does, from two special vantage points, firstly, technoscience represents a new epistemological situation and secondly, a new attitude to social values, expressed in the quest for innovation and improved human conditions. These positions are associated with a new epoch, reflexive modernity or second modernity substituting the linear model of planning and institutional organization, which has for long been modernity’s hallmark. However one should discern this from an important historical fact, that science in practice never has been pure. In general, technology has been inseparable from science since at least the scientific revolution. Science is dependent on technology and technology is embedded in science. Hence the intertwining of theoretical science with technology cannot be a starting point to defend an argument of a new epoch of technoscience. Technoscience evokes the question if science is acquiring features we don’t yet have an epistemic vocabulary to articulate and hence have difficulties to reflect upon. The break with modernity consists in this non-determinate and open situation. Established binary categories such as natural—man-made and real—unreal are in flux since technoscience has remodeled the ontological situation, both from the perspective of science and of everyday life. The aim with this chapter is to show that the concept of technoscience, opens up for critical reflections on science and society, that remains veiled in concept such as Global Science and Big Science. For some people, the term technoscience is provocative and associated with postmodernism and the de-constructivist ambition to dissolve the rational cornerstones of our modern age and especially the Enlightenment heritage. This ideological standpoint is redundant for accepting that new features of science are constitutive for our knowledge-oriented society. Technoscience opens up for address the new situation of “knowledge and objectivity, theory and evidence, explanation and validation, representation and experimentation,” that affects society as a whole on long terms. (shrink)

: The logical empiricists in Vienna and their Swedish counterparts in Uppsala shared a scientific ethos that underlined the philosophical academics as representatives for universalism, disinterest, professional loyalty, organized scepticism and public interest. Rudolf Carnap, Axel Hägerström and Ingemar Hedenius regarded themselves as intellectuals, offering their philosophical tools to society. However, when the scientific ethos was articulated by Robert Merton in 1942, the circumstances had drastically changed. The European tradition was left behind. However, the claim is that neither the professionalism, (...) nor the specialized epistemology in analytical philosophy necessarily alienated the philosopher from the public. The gap occurred when the epistemology ceased to be cultural meaningful, as a part of the spirit of the time. The modernistic spirit promoted the ethos of intellectuality. In the 1960s a new ethos took over: the philosophers as purely academic professional experts, in US and Sweden. (shrink)

The history of scientific illustrations is a story that correspond the cultural, economic, political and scientific history of the world. A look into the history of sciences displays that pictures and illustrations had a decisive role for the sciences progressive success and rising societal status from the sixteenth century. The illustrations visualized the unknown to graspable facts. Without the pictures the new discovered continents, the blood circulatory system and the body’s muscles had remained theoretical proclamations. The scientific discoveries became visible (...) and communicated, to a wider audience by its illustrations. The scientific illustrations and maps were intertwined with an epistemic ambition to unveil the true natural order. During the seventeenth century the concept of objectivity was interpreted as a quest for revealing nature’s ideal order, a task only feasible for the brilliant artist to accomplish. The epistemic ambition concurred with the belief that only one true ontological order existed that the scientific knowledge had to uncover. This concept of objectivity was succeeded by the modern concept of objectivity which equated objectivity with impartiality and elimination of the scientist’s subjective bias. The view from “nowhere” is still a valid, ruling definition of objectivity. However, the presence and huge expansion of computational pictures in the sciences as well in everyday life raises the question if a new sense of objectivity is framed. In physics and chemistry the produced pictures intend to be contributions to an ongoing theoretical discussion, about a nature in constant flux, let it be molecules or artificially processed materials in the nanoscale. The traveller designs her own map in advance, mixing the Google earth features with the personal arrangements. For both the scientists and the laymen the modernist objective virtues of detachment, impartiality and disinterestedness have been supplemented by a return of subjective involvements. (shrink)