Scientists' views of the philosophy of science

Many studies in public understanding of science emphasise that learning how to do science also involves learning about the philosophical issues surrounding the nature of science. This thesis aims to find out how scientists themselves talk and write about these philosophical topics, and how these topics get used in scientific thought. It contrasts scientists' opinions on these issues with how they are portrayed in popular science, and also contrasts them with how philosophers themselves have justified their ideas. Through analysing how scientists talk and write about philosophical topics, it aims to find out what and how scientists themselves think and learn about the nature of science, and what they would like other people to learn about it. 30 popular science books were analysed for how they treat philosophical topics on the nature of science. 40 academic scientists were then asked in a series of semi- structured interviews questions based on the philosophical topics that were found discussed most often in the books. Five philosophical topics are dealt with in detail: The demarcation question of "what is science", the philosophies of Popper and Kuhn, Occam's razor and reductionism, which reflect the most common philosophical themes in the popular science books. In interpreting the books and the scientists' responses on these topics, I use the concepts of boundary work and boundary objects, and social identity theory. It demonstrates that philosophical topics can be used to draw boundaries and to define social identities around science or various disciplinary affiliations. Philosophies and famous philosophers like Popper also act as boundary objects facilitating scientific communication across boundaries. The talk surrounding the various philosophical categories however often hides a big variation in actual philosophical opinion, which is set slightly apart from how the philosophy itself is discussed

Why we need a public understanding of social science

Copyright © The Author(s) 2023. Who is licensed to make knowledge claims about society? A more diffuse group of individuals are afforded the status of legitimate speakers on society in the public sphere than is the case when the questions relate to the expertise of the natural sciences. We draw on the concept of the ‘locus of legitimate interpretation’ and the sensibilities of Collins and Evans’ Studies of Expertise and Experience programme to help make sense of these issues. The social sciences are not the natural sciences, and one key difference is their relationship with publics. The social sciences are intrinsically entangled, at both the level of the research question and the research subject/object, with public knowledge, the knowledges of publics and public interests. We therefore outline what these differences might mean for a serious, distinct and purposive Public Understanding of Social Science programme and how this differs from current work in the Public Understanding of Science.The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article

Science blogging: Networks, boundaries and limitations

There is limited research into the realities of science blogging, how science bloggers themselves view their activity and what bloggers can achieve. The ‘badscience’ blogs analysed here show a number of interesting developments, with significant implications for understandings of science blogging and scientific cultures more broadly. A functioning and diverse online community (with offline elements) has been constructed, with a number of non-professional and anonymous members and with boundary work being used to establish a recognisable outgroup. The community has developed distinct norms alongside a type of distributed authority and has negotiated the authority, anonymity and varying status of many community members in some interesting and novel ways. Activist norms and initiatives have been actioned, with some prominent community campaigns and action. There are questions about what science blogging—both in the UK and internationally—may be able to achieve in future and about the fragility of the ‘badscience’ community. Some of the highly optimistic hopes which have been associated with science blogging have not been realised. Nonetheless, the small group of bloggers focused on here have produced significant achievements with limited resources, especially when one considers this in the context of community values as opposed to some of the expectations attached to science blogging within scientific cultures more broadly. While the impacts of this science blogging community remain uncertain, the novel and potentially significant practices analysed here do merit serious consideration

Are audiences receptive to humour in popular science articles? An exploratory study using articles on environmental issues

Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). This study aims to test the perceptions of audiences to positive and non-aggressive humour in two popular articles. The themes were the effects of climate change on biodiversity and the over-exploitation of species. Both articles were published on-line at a Portuguese environmental site, and readers were asked to answer to an on-line survey. A total of 159 participants submitted their answers concerning their receptiveness to the humour, demographic information and comments. Results showed that the use of humour in popular articles is considered valuable for the majority of these readers, but different degrees of receptiveness suggest caution in its use