Additional Information
Book Details
Abstract
The Science Communication Challenge explores and discusses the whys – as distinct from the hows – of science communication. Arguing that the dominant science communication paradigm is didactic, it makes the case for a political category of science communication, aimed at furthering discussions of science-related public affairs and making room for civilized and reasonable exchanges between different points of view. As civil societies and knowledge societies, modern democratic societies are confronted with the challenge of accommodating both the scientific logic of truth-seeking and the classical political logic of pluralism. The didactic science communication paradigm, however, is unsuited to dealing with substantial disagreement. Therefore, it is also unsuited to facilitate communication about the steadily increasing number of science-related political issues. Using insights from an array of academic fields, The Science Communication Challenge explores the possible origins of the didactic paradigm, connecting it to particular understandings of knowledge, politics and the public and to the widespread assumption of a science-versus-politics dichotomy. The book offers a critique of that assumption and suggests that science and politics be seen as substantially different activities, suited to dealing with different kinds of questions – and to different varieties of science communication.
Current knowledge societies tend to be based on an understanding of science as an all-purpose problem-solver and include the expansion of scientific methods and frameworks of thought to ever more areas of life. Such development is less pragmatic and down-to- earth than it may appear at first glance. It is accompanied by a relentless expansion of the domain of a logic of universal truth and its technical equivalent: correct solutions, and is tied to a general understanding of science communication as a didactic enterprise aimed at disseminating scientific ways of thinking and responses to problems to a lay public of non-knowers.
Potentially, it seems, science can provide answers to all questions. Disagreement appears as no more than a symptom of immature science and has no place within the didactic science communication paradigm. As a consequence, democratic knowledge societies are challenged as political entities in the classical, pluralist sense, characterized by continuous discussion among different points of view and ways of reasoning on societal issues and using disagreement as a vehicle for discussions, negotiations and compromises.
Against such a background, ‘The Science Communication Challenge’ suggests that the didactic approaches to science communication be supplemented with a political category of science communication, suited to practical-political issues and featuring citizens on an equal footing – some of them scientists – who represent different points of view and ways of reasoning and share responsibility for public affairs. The possible gain, it is argued, may be the maintenance of knowledge societies as political entities with room for a civil society of multiple positions and perspectives that has served as a fertile ground for the development of science as an intellectual endeavour and as a body of knowledge and rational methodology.
Drawing on insights from an array of academic fields and disciplines, ‘The Science Communication Challenge’ explores the possible origins of the didactic paradigm, connecting it to particular understandings of knowledge, politics and the public and to the seemingly widespread assumption of a science-versus-politics dichotomy, taking science and politics to be competing activities that are concerned with similar questions in different ways. Inspired by classical political thought it is argued that science and politics be seen as substantially different activities, suited to dealing with different kinds of questions – and to different varieties of science communication.
Gitte Meyer was a journalist, concentrating on science- and technology-related issues, for 25 years (1975–2000) before turning to academics. Using a multidisciplinary approach to researching and writing, she focuses on the interplay between science and wider society. Meyer has been affiliated with the University of Copenhagen, Aalborg University and Copenhagen Business School.
‘Gitte Meyer’s book is great food for thought – and should be read even by those who will, ultimately, remain unconvinced by her vision of how to dismantle the science–society divide.’
—Peter Sandøe, Professor, Department of Food and Resource Economics and Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Table of Contents
Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
---|---|---|---|
Cover | Cover 1 | ||
Front Matter | i | ||
Half-title | i | ||
Title page | iii | ||
Copyright information | iv | ||
Table of contents | v | ||
Snapshots | vii | ||
Acknowledgements | ix | ||
Chapter 1-5 | 1 | ||
Chapter 1 Science Communication in Democratic Knowledge Societies | 1 | ||
Truth and Disagreement | 3 | ||
Knowledge Societies as Civil Societies | 9 | ||
Truth versus Falsity – and Different Points of View | 13 | ||
Social and Political Animals | 16 | ||
Science and Science Communication as Intellectual Activities | 18 | ||
Overview | 20 | ||
Notes | 22 | ||
Chapter 2 Science As ‘Universal Light’ | 25 | ||
Modern Science as a Movement | 26 | ||
Influences from religious truth-seeking and strife | 27 | ||
Anti-enthusiastic enthusiasm | 31 | ||
Belief and scepticism | 34 | ||
Influences from economic and social developments | 36 | ||
‘Things, not words’ | 39 | ||
Anti-intellectualism? | 42 | ||
Waves of Science Enthusiasm | 44 | ||
The great awakening of the 1960s | 45 | ||
Another wave of science communication enthusiasm | 49 | ||
Varieties of Knowledge | 52 | ||
Interpretation and realism | 55 | ||
Varieties of science communication: Didactics and dialectics | 56 | ||
Notes | 58 | ||
Chapter 3 The Elusive Concept of the Modern Public | 63 | ||
The Ancient Idea of the Masses and the Elites | 64 | ||
The modern inversion of the ancient idea | 66 | ||
Leisure, learning and social distinction | 69 | ||
Fear of the barbarians: Variations on a theme | 71 | ||
The modern reinvention of the laity | 74 | ||
Education and eugenics | 76 | ||
Shuttling between Elitism and Populism | 77 | ||
Ambiguity: Science, the masses and the elites | 80 | ||
The mass public as an object of social-scientific enquiry | 83 | ||
The deficit model of the public: Criticized and persistent | 86 | ||
Fascination as a Science Communication Ideal | 90 | ||
Notes | 93 | ||
Chapter 4 The Elusive Concept of Modern Politics | 97 | ||
Suspicion | 99 | ||
The Opposite or the Application of Science | 104 | ||
Anti-political devotion to democracy | 106 | ||
Sociocracy: More democratic than democracy? | 110 | ||
Visions of revolutionary science | 111 | ||
The reinvention of political problems as wicked problems | 112 | ||
Dialogue in vogue | 113 | ||
The Classical Institution of Public Discussion | 115 | ||
Political Cultures in Nutshells: Traditions of Journalism | 119 | ||
The reporter tradition | 120 | ||
The publizist tradition | 123 | ||
The reporter, the publizist and science communication91 | 126 | ||
‘Post-Truth’: Prejudices about Politics Come True | 129 | ||
Notes | 131 | ||
Chapter 5 A Political Category of Science Communication | 135 | ||
Science Communication Challenges | 136 | ||
Hype and concealment | 136 | ||
Uncertainty about uncertainty | 139 | ||
Public opinion and scientific consensus | 140 | ||
Awe, banalization, imitation, quackery and superstition | 144 | ||
Barriers to critical self-examination | 147 | ||
A Possible Exit from the Elitism–Populism Axis | 150 | ||
Science communication as practical reasoning and scientists as citizens | 152 | ||
Western disagreements and their possible global uses | 154 | ||
Enlightening tensions and the benefits of contradiction | 155 | ||
Notes | 161 | ||
End Matter | 165 | ||
Bibliography | 165 | ||
Index | 177 |