#08 Bacchus reading group summary
This month’s reading: Porter, T. M. (2009). How science became technical. Isis, 100:292–309.
Notes of the comments made during the discussion:
The paper makes the case that science has not always been regarded as “technical”, yes there has been a requirement for technical expertise in order to participate within the discussions. However, that type of technicality was a consequence of it being a skill transmitted of master to student, and not a technical requirement of researchers or the laity speaking outside of their area of expertise
The quote: “When science denies its own depth in favor of pretending to the straightforward application of method and the production of information, it participates ironically in the anti-intellectualism it otherwise purports to combat.” (p. 309), could also be read in a context of REF impact assessment, that in a way is black boxing the evaluation process of value to the expert community itself
There seems to be a tension with modern science. In the sense that when it relates to accumulating resources, celebrating the success and establishing (moral) expertise, the higher goals of science such as enlightenment and rationality are readily trumpeted.
However, when it comes to criticism, then the issues are transformed into technicalities in order to defuse the criticism or delegitimise the attack on technical grounds
The discussion turned to a dual problem, namely the need for expert help with making judgement, even those of a political nature. As well as the question of how expertise is established in the first place.
Here the sophistication of the specific language repertoire of a technical discipline represents a hallmark of sign of expertise, besides mere credentials. Here the ability to translate the complex vocabulary into simple everyday understandable terms, then represents the mechanism of how the non-initiated can judge the expertise of the individual making said claims.
In other words, making relevant IMPACT claims, that are of social significance
Internally, from the view of any discipline it is difficult to translate technical knowledge into intuitive non-technical terms. The individuals, whom are successful in inventing the best narratives and have the skills to do that, will be rewarded by their research community, as they not only make a case for themselves, but for the community of experts in general.
To find these types of narratives, academic freedom is importance as they only are hit upon by trial and error
The role of academic freedom and impact is different, depending upon the audience and what relationship they have to expertise.
The described history, focused a lot on French intellectual history. What would have been interesting, is to have a counterpart of the Anglosaxon development.
For example, due to the reign of terror after the French revolution, many conservative French intellectuals fled to the UK, taking their ideas and experiences with them. Understanding how these ideas influenced British intellectual development in specific, and how British intellectual development unfolded in general would be interesting.
