Science as Social Knowledge

Longino, Helen E.

doi:10.1515/9780691209753

Cited by 2,077 publications

(246 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

230

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, an individual climatologist giving testimony to the U.S. Congress is not necessarily a legitimate voice of science, unless that individual reports consensus views (Allchin, 2015). To be trustworthy, scientific knowledge must reflect the epistemic checks and balances of diverse perspectives (Harding, 1991; Longino, 1990; Solomon, 2001). Scientific knowledge is socially embodied in a consensus (Oreskes, 2014, 2019), although rarely formal or stated explicitly, as the IPCC does.…”

Section: How Scientists Communicatementioning

confidence: 99%

Reconceptualizing nature‐of‐science education in the age of social media

Höttecke¹,

Allchin

2020

Science Education

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals are increasingly relying on social media as their primary source of scientific information. Science education needs to adapt. Nature of science (NOS) education is already widely accepted as essential to scientific literacy and to an informed public. We argue that NOS now needs to also include the NOS communication: its mediation, mechanisms, and manipulation. Namely, students need to learn about the epistemics of communicative practices, both within science (as a model) and in society. After profiling the current media landscape, we consider the implications of recent major studies on science communication for science education in the 21st century. We focus in particular on communicative patterns prominent in social media: algorithms to aggregate news, filter bubbles, echo chambers, spirals of silence, falseconsensus effects, fake news, and intentional disinformation.We claim that media literacy is now essential to a complete view of the NOS, or "Whole Science." We portray that new content as an extension of viewing science as a system of specialized experts, with mutual epistemic dependence, and the social and communicative practices that establish trust and credibility. K E Y W O R D S media literacy, nature of science, science media literacy, social media ---This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

show abstract

Section: How Scientists Communicatementioning

confidence: 99%

Reconceptualizing nature‐of‐science education in the age of social media

Höttecke¹,

Allchin

2020

Science Education

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Its flourishing had strong roots in feminist theory and method, particularly critiques of science and representation (Kwan ; McLafferty ). In the first instance, the challenge Critical GIS posed to unproblematic pronouncements as to the neutrality of GIS drew directly on the feminist insistence that science and technology are never neutral by virtue of being both (gender) value‐ and theory‐laden (Keller ; Harding ; Longino ; Nelson ). Second, critiques of the power relations and inherent epistemological limitations of GIS artefacts and practices of discretization drew strongly upon feminist critiques of vision and the god‐trick (Haraway ; Rose ).…”

Section: Feminism Gis and Geographymentioning

confidence: 99%

Feminist geographies of new spatial media

Leszczynski

Elwood

2014

Canadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Critical GIS emphasized the ways in which social, political, and economic inequalities are (re)produced through spatial information technologies and attendant practices. In the mid-1990s through the early 2000s, feminist interventions challenged the presumed gender neutrality and universality of GIS and brought gender to the fore of Critical GIS concerns. However, the rise of nascent web-based spatial information technologies-or new spatial media-signals the need to extend this work to determine how it is that gender matters differently in this newly diversified, pervasive, and public context of geographic information technologies. Building on an analysis of online commentaries and an assessment of the functions and promotional material of several illustrative applications, we argue that gender continues to "matter" vis-à-vis new spatial media in three key dimensions: i) new practices of data creation and curation; ii) affordances of new technologies; and iii) new digital spatial mediations of everyday life. Les géographies féministes des nouveaux médias spatiauxLes instigateurs d'un examen critique des SIG ont souligné la façon dont les inégalités sociales, politiques et économiques sont (re)produites par les technologies de l'information spatiale et les pratiques consécutives. Du milieu des années 1990 jusqu'au début des années 2000, les interventions féministes ont contesté la prétendue neutralité de genre ainsi que l'universalité des SIG et ont fait ressortir l'importance des questions de genre pour la critique des SIG. Toutefois, la montée des nouvelles technologies de l'information spatiale sur le Web -ou des nouveaux médias spatiaux -laisse entrevoir la nécessité d'élargir ce chantier afin de déterminer dans quelle mesure le genre intervient différemment dans le nouveau contexte diversifié, omniprésent et public des technologies de l'information géographique. En s'appuyant sur une analyse de commentaires en ligne et une évaluation des fonctions et du matériel de promotion de plusieurs exemples d'application, nous soutenons que le genre « compte » toujours en regard des nouveaux médias spatiaux et ce, à trois niveaux: i) les nouvelles pratiques de création et de conservation des données, ii) la capacité d'accéder aux nouvelles technologies, et iii) les nouveaux arbitrages spatiaux-numériques de la vie quotidienne.Mots clés : critique des SIG, inégalité sociale numérique, genre, médias spatiaux, information géographique volontaire (IGV)

show abstract

“…The transformation requires both a temporal element and a social community. The social community is necessary to subject the explanatory hypothesis to critical evaluation and only when it survives repeated critiques, each of which is shown to be defeasible, does it attain the status of consensually agreed knowledge (Longino, 1990), and hence, become a commonly accepted explanation. This is one of the reasons why critique is so fundamental to science and the act of knowledge construction (Ford, 2008).…”

Section: Where Argument and Explanation Overlapmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction?

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we argue that there is an emergent confusion in the literature in the use of the terms “argument'' and “explanation.” Drawing on a range of publications, we point to instances where these terms are either used inappropriately or conflated. We argue that the distinction between these two constructs is, however, important as a lack of clarity of fundamental concepts is problematic for a field. First, a lack of common conception hinders effective communication and, second, it makes defining the nature of the activity we might expect students to engage in more difficult. Drawing on a body of scholarship on argument and explanation, this paper is an attempt to clarify the distinction and to explain why such a distinction might matter. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 95:627–638, 2011

show abstract

Science as Social Knowledge

Cited by 2,077 publications

References 0 publications

Reconceptualizing nature‐of‐science education in the age of social media

Reconceptualizing nature‐of‐science education in the age of social media

Feminist geographies of new spatial media

Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About