Is Anti-Science not-Science?

Pinch, Trevor; Collins, Harry

doi:10.1007/978-94-009-9421-8_11

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It's, therefore, a result of a co-production between science and society. Based on that, our aim was to map the legitimation process of a scientific fact; and, in order to do so, we used the assumptions of Collins and Pinch (1979) to analyze what would be an antiscientific discourse from this perspective. For the authors, an idea can be considered unscientific for three reasons (1) it does not follow an epistemological maxim that defines it as scientific; as the application of an induction idea or the search for basic facts; 2) it does not apply a legitimate method in the community; 3) its content is incompatible with established scientific knowledge (Pinch & Collins, 1979).…”

Section: ) Map the Relationship Between Its Actors In Order To Unders...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…João Dória's position does not show a debate between science and antiscience, but rather a political position in which the adoption of isolation measures was linked to projections based on the health system's capacity. Based on the proposal by Pinch & Collins (1979), it can be noted there is no denial of scientific methods, nor a denial of basic facts or content that is incompatible with established scientific knowledge. This is not an unscientific or scientific discourse.…”

Section: João Doria Governor Of São Paulomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Covid-19 in Brazil: Political controversies over social isolation measures to control the pandemic. A science vs. antiscience dispute?

Batista de Oliveira,

Said Vieira,

Synesio Alves Monteiro

et al. 2022

Razón y Palabra

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Covid-19 pandemic has narrowed the relationship between scientists and leaders around the world, with challenging decisions shared by both areas. Social isolation measures in Brazil as a way to control Sars-CoV-2 cases were involved in an intense political debate. Our aim in this article is to establish whether this dispute can be perceived as a science vs. antiscience controversy. In order to do so, we used criteria based on the Social Studies of Science and Technology (STS), which understands science fact as co-produced by social legitimation and influential actors, and Collins & Pinch approach to define an antiscientific discourse. By searches in the press and Twitter, from the first case of Sars-CoV-2 in Brazil — 25 February 2020 — until the 26th of April, we found three important political actors in the social isolation debate: 1) João Doria, governor of São Paulo; 2) Henrique Mandetta, ministry of Health; 3) Jair Bolsonaro, president of Brazil. Although there were different approaches in relation to science, with actor (1) dialoguing with an elite scientific community, actor (2) avoiding the debate initially, and referring to a more insulated science with selective debates; and actor (3) having a science-related populism approach, the investigation concluded that social isolation measures debate in Brazil were not polarized as a science vs. antiscience debate. Science and its symbolic authority were used by all actors to legitimate their positions, and, for this reason, we believe it would be very difficult for the general public to analyze whether these actors were using good quality evidence to support their positions. Further studies can invest in the analysis of social consensus production beyond scientific claims. Keywords: Covid-19; dissent and disputes; social isolation, quarantine, antiscience, science controversy

show abstract

Section: ) Map the Relationship Between Its Actors In Order To Unders...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: João Doria Governor Of São Paulomentioning

confidence: 99%