Golem science and the public understanding of science: from deficit to dilemma

Abstract

“Golem science” is Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch's humanized image of science, filled with irresolution, that they wish to substitute for the “god-like” image of definitive knowledge characteristic of public presentations of science. This god-like image creates unrealistic expectations that fuel “anti-scientific” reactions when unmet. This paper argues that the “flip-flop” view set forth by Collins and Pinch is a deficit model that positions the public as sociologically incompetent. It reflects the dilemma of professional social scientists who deconstruct science whilst appealing to the authority of science. This dilemma is an outcome of a deeper tension within science between the universal status of knowledge claims and the particular, human conditions of knowledge production. Drawing on discursive (or rhetorical) psychology, I show that this tension plays out in the rhetorical organization of scientific discourse in the form of a characteristic contrast between empiricist and contingent repertoires. A similar tension is discernible in everyday, mundane reasoning, which suggests that a golem image of science is already present in commonsense understanding alongside the “god-like” image. Thus, the public understanding of science is dilemmatically constituted, providing the conditions of argumentation with science seen in “antiscience”—itself a “folk devil” and rhetorical label. The analysis in this paper is illustrated using the example of creationism, which arises from an argumentative engagement with science that draws on the resources provided by the dilemma of science in conjunction with other resources drawn from Christianity. There is no simple “flip-flop” here. Further research into rhetorical reasoning in public understanding is called for on the grounds that greater appreciation of this is needed alongside golem science to improve relations between scientists and the public.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

J. Durant , “Editorial,” Public Understanding of Science 6 no. 4 (1997).

J.-M. Lévy-LeBlond , “About Misunderstandings about Misunderstandings,” Public Understanding of Science 1 (1992): 17-21.

“Science Peace” was the title of a one-day conference held at Southampton University on 28 July 1997.

H. Collins and T. Pinch , The Golem: What Everyone Should Know about Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

and “Mundane Reasoning,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 5 (1974): 35-54.

M. Billig et al. , Ideological Dilemmas: A Social Psychology of Everyday Thinking (London: Sage, 1988).

Collins and Pinch , The Golem, pp. 142-143.

and it was the focus of much discussion at the 1997 Southampton University “Science Peace Conference.” A companion volume has recently been published, H. Collins and T. Pinch , The Golem at Large: What You Should Know about Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Here I confine discussion to the first volume.

Collins and Pinch , The Golem, p. 2.

10.

See also H. M. Collins , “Certainty and the Public Understanding of Science,” Social Studies of Science 17 (1987): 689-713.

11.

Collins and Pinch , The Golem, p. 2.

12.

Collins and Pinch , The Golem, p. 145.

13.

R. Dunbar , The Trouble with Science (London: Faber and Faber, 1995).

14.

See also the discussion in J. Gregory and S. Miller , Science in Public: Communication, Culture, and Credibility (New York: Plenum Press, 1998).

15.

See, for example, J. Habermas , “Technology and Science as `Ideology,' ” Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science, and Politics, trans. J. Shapiro (London: Heinemann, 1971), pp. 81-122.

16.

For an illustration and discussion of the issues here, see B. Martin , “Sticking a Needle into Science: The Case of Polio Vaccines and the Origins of AIDS,” Social Studies of Science 26 (1996): 245-276.

17.

D. Bloor , Knowledge and Social Imagery (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976).

18.

Cf. E. Richards' extension of the “monster” imagery to the public in “(Un)Boxing the Monster.”

19.

D. Nelkin , “Science, Technology, and Political Conflict: Analyzing the Issues,” Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions, 3d ed., edited by D. Nelkin (London: Sage, 1992), pp. ix-xxv.

20.

B. Wynne , “SSK's Identity Parade: Signing-Up, Off-and-On,” Social Studies of Science 26 (1996): 357-391.

21.

Collins and Pinch , The Golem, p.147.

22.

Richards , “(Un)Boxing the Monster.”

23.

J. Turney , Frankenstein's Footsteps: Science, Genetics, and Popular Culture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), p. 13.

24.

A. Cranny-Francis , “The `Science' of Science Fiction: A Sociocultural Analysis,” Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science (London: Routledge, 1998), edited by J. R. Martin and R. Veel , pp. 63-80, at p. 77.

25.

Irwin and Wynne, “Introduction.”

26.

G. N. Gilbert and M. Mulkay , Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).

27.

G. Myers , Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990).

28.

J. Potter , Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric, and Social Construction (London: Sage, 1996), pp. 25-34.

29.

Cf. M. Mulkay's “rules for generating scientific letters” in The Word And The World, p. 65.

30.

J. S. Nelson , A. Megill , and D. N. McCloskey , eds., The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences: Language and Argument in Scholarship and Public Affairs (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987).

31.

Potter , Representing Reality, pp. 154-155.

32.

S. Locke , “The Use of Scientific Discourse by Creation Scientists: Some Preliminary Findings,” Public Understanding of Science 3 (1994): 403-424.

33.

For further discussion see Locke , Constructing “The Beginning,” pp. 48-51.

34.

D. Nelkin , ed., Controversy.

35.

S. Yearley , “Vocabularies of Freedom and Resentment: A Strawsonian Perspective on the Nature of Argumentation in Science and the Law,” Social Studies of Science 15 (1985): 99-126.

36.

Potter , Representing Reality, pp.152-158.

37.

See especially Edley , “Prince Charles—Our Flexible Friend.”

38.

S. Moores , Interpreting Audiences: The Ethnography of Media Consumption (London: Sage, 1993).

39.

Pollner , Mundane Reason.

40.

S. Cohen , Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers (London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1972).

41.

Billig , Arguing and Thinking.

42.

M. Billig , Ideology and Opinions: Studies in Rhetorical Psychology (London: Sage, 1991), p. 24.

43.

Billig , Arguing and Thinking.

44.

G. Myers and P. Macnaghten , “Rhetorics of Environmental Sustainability: Commonplaces and Places,” Environment and Planning, A, 30 (1998): 333-353.

45.

Billig et al. , Ideological Dilemmas.

46.

Cf. G. N. Gilbert and M. Mulkay , “In Search of the Action,” Accounts and Action: Surrey Conferences on Sociological Theory and Method, 1, edited by G. N. Gilbert and P. Abell (Aldershot: Gower, 1983), pp. 8-34.

47.

Billig , Arguing and Thinking, p. 111.

48.

See also Yearley , “Vocabularies of Freedom and Resentment.”

49.

Locke , Constructing “The Beginning,” chap. 4.

50.

Locke , Constructing “The Beginning,” chap. 3.

51.

A fuller list is provided in S. Locke, “Rationalisation or Resource? A Study of the Use of Scientists' Discourse by the Creation Science Movement in Britain” (Ph.D. diss., University of Leicester, 1994).

52.

M. L. McPhail , Zen in the Art of Rhetoric: An Inquiry into Coherence (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996), p. 35.

53.

See also Lessl , “Science and the Sacred Cosmos.”

54.

Wittgenstein, cited in J.-F. Lyotard , The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984), p. 40.

55.

Lyotard , The Postmodern Condition, p. 41.

56.

and “Parallels and Paradoxes in Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism II,” Social Studies of Science 12 (1982): 37-71.

57.

B. Barnes , Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974), p. 100.

58.

C. A. Taylor and C. M. Condit , “Objectivity and Elites: A Creation Science Trial,” Critical Studies in Mass Communications 5 (1988): 293-312.

59.

Billig , Arguing and Thinking, p. 95.