In my research, I’m examining the relationship between scientific knowledge and traditional knowledge, as well as between conflicting theories of physics to understand how the collaborative environment in journalism could build a more democratic, pluralist and less authoritarian science by means of communication. A question that arises as background is if cyberspace, with its multiplicity, would be capable of changing the scientific orthodoxy, which contributes to the discredit of theories and knowledge always so that new ideas overtake others. Science blogs are changing the way of spreading news, giving scientists and nonscientists the opportunity of being not only the sources, but also the authors of news. However, the increasing use of technology to spread information could be capable of reinforcing the isolation among science and technology areas instead of promoting dialogue between sources and readers. The cyberspace increase access to news production in a decentralized way, but is there room for new theories able to improve the scientific debate? I will present my plan of study and my preliminary hypothesis sustained by concepts of the Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend to analyze the current situation of science journalism carried out on the internet. Based on Habermas’s “Fé e Saber” (2001) that quotes “the scientific belief that a science which one day will be able to not only to complement but also to substitute personal self comprehension by a self description objectifying, it’s not science, it’s bad philosophy”, and Feyerabend’s “Adeus à razão” (2010) that quotes that “non experts frequently know more than specialists and should therefore be consulted”. Thus, it’s possible to defend the idea that, by means of collaborative journalism in science, we can stimulate the scientific debate, considered essential for science development. This poster is part of an analytical study under development at Labjor-UNICAMP and discusses whether there is room in cyberspace for controversies in science and for the proliferation of conflicts, theories, methods and points of view that are often disconnected from the scientific orthodoxy.

">
 [PCST]
PCST Network

Public Communication of Science and Technology

 

Against the method
Could the philosopher feyerabend contribute to science journalism?
`

Bruno de Pierro   Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil

In my research, I’m examining the relationship between scientific knowledge and traditional knowledge, as well as between conflicting theories of physics to understand how the collaborative environment in journalism could build a more democratic, pluralist and less authoritarian science by means of communication. A question that arises as background is if cyberspace, with its multiplicity, would be capable of changing the scientific orthodoxy, which contributes to the discredit of theories and knowledge always so that new ideas overtake others. Science blogs are changing the way of spreading news, giving scientists and nonscientists the opportunity of being not only the sources, but also the authors of news. However, the increasing use of technology to spread information could be capable of reinforcing the isolation among science and technology areas instead of promoting dialogue between sources and readers. The cyberspace increase access to news production in a decentralized way, but is there room for new theories able to improve the scientific debate? I will present my plan of study and my preliminary hypothesis sustained by concepts of the Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend to analyze the current situation of science journalism carried out on the internet. Based on Habermas’s “Fé e Saber” (2001) that quotes “the scientific belief that a science which one day will be able to not only to complement but also to substitute personal self comprehension by a self description objectifying, it’s not science, it’s bad philosophy”, and Feyerabend’s “Adeus à razão” (2010) that quotes that “non experts frequently know more than specialists and should therefore be consulted”. Thus, it’s possible to defend the idea that, by means of collaborative journalism in science, we can stimulate the scientific debate, considered essential for science development. This poster is part of an analytical study under development at Labjor-UNICAMP and discusses whether there is room in cyberspace for controversies in science and for the proliferation of conflicts, theories, methods and points of view that are often disconnected from the scientific orthodoxy.

A copy of the full paper has not yet been submitted.

BACK TO TOP