- Taschenbuch: 501 Seiten
- Verlag: Mit University Press Group Ltd (5. November 2010)
- Sprache: Englisch
- ISBN-10: 189095179X
- ISBN-13: 978-1890951795
- Größe und/oder Gewicht: 15,2 x 3,9 x 22,9 cm
- Durchschnittliche Kundenbewertung: 2 Kundenrezensionen
- Amazon Bestseller-Rang: Nr. 4.363 in Fremdsprachige Bücher (Siehe Top 100 in Fremdsprachige Bücher)
Andere Verkäufer auf Amazon
+ EUR 3,00 Versandkosten
+ EUR 3,00 Versandkosten
+ kostenlose Lieferung
Objectivity (Mit Press) (Englisch) Taschenbuch – 5. November 2010
Wird oft zusammen gekauft
Kunden, die diesen Artikel gekauft haben, kauften auch
Es wird kein Kindle Gerät benötigt. Laden Sie eine der kostenlosen Kindle Apps herunter und beginnen Sie, Kindle-Bücher auf Ihrem Smartphone, Tablet und Computer zu lesen.
Geben Sie Ihre Mobiltelefonnummer ein, um die kostenfreie App zu beziehen.
Wenn Sie dieses Produkt verkaufen, möchten Sie über Seller Support Updates vorschlagen?
We need history of science in the style of Daston and Galison: a history of science that commands the details but at the same time discerns the shape of larger developmentsand that makes us realize just how many meanings have been packed into the little word 'objectivity, ' which rolls so trippingly off the tongue.--Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
Über den Autor und weitere Mitwirkende
Peter Galison is Pellegrino University Professor of the History of Science and of Physics at Harvard University. He is the author of Einstein's Clocks, Poincaré's Maps: Empires of Time, How Experiments End, and Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics, among other books, and coeditor (with Emily Thompson) of The Architecture of Science (MIT Press, 1999).
Derzeit tritt ein Problem beim Filtern der Rezensionen auf. Bitte versuchen Sie es später noch einmal.
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.com
In sum, the book covers three major movements in the institution of science regarding notions of truth and representation. The idea of scientific objectivity is actually a very recent phenomenon. What we usually forget is that the community and historical institution of research science has always been a SOCIAL phenomenon, and thus subject to change over time that reflects the evolving relationship between human actors and their understanding of the world. Objectivity, in the sense of removing the inherent error in human subjectivity and observation from the process of scientific judgement, has not always been a part of the way the scientific community approaches data. It only arose around the invention of the film camera, which allowed scientists to slow down and capture moments of phenomena that occurred too quickly for the human eye to observe in process. As a consequence, the scientific community began to move away from idealized renderings of the natural world and move towards mechanical observation using scientific instruments. Over time, scientists found drawbacks to the purely mechanical approach to observation, moving towards another hybrid view that privileged scientific judgement instead.
What I would encourage you to take away from a reading of this book is three-fold. First is the understanding that science, as a SOCIAL entity, constantly innovates and refines through social consensus its philosophical understanding of the human relationship to a notion of truth and the means by which that truth might be accessed. This process is ongoing and never completely settled, because the community must debate and vet these positions through years and even generations of debate. Secondly, as a media studies scholar, I would point out the fundamental relationship between the notion of "objectivity" and its dependence on mechanical media to validate the discursive expunging of the subject from the act of observation. This is really, really key. This particular formation between the object, the observing subject (who nonetheless continues to be part of the observation whether or not the instrument is present), and the mechanical instrument through which we find different means of accessing (or constructing) the object represents a new trifecta in our relations with the world. And thirdly, it must be emphasized that the shifting popularity of the three positions or formations of the truth-and-representation paradigms DOES NOT indicate progress. Not only do all three of these paradigms STILL PERSIST, but they continue to operate in the laboratory in tandem, used to this day in different combinations and for different discursive aims. We have not left any of these positions behind, but rather accumulate them into the present.
In sum, I find this volume to be a fantastic good read. The historical evidence is rigorous and the analysis delightful. It really is an accomplishment in historical writing that is thoughtfully grounded in the material dimensions of scientific thinking.