Fai clic su di un'immagine per andare a Google Ricerca Libri.
Sto caricando le informazioni... How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United Statesdi John C. Burnham
Nessuno Sto caricando le informazioni...
Iscriviti per consentire a LibraryThing di scoprire se ti piacerà questo libro. Attualmente non vi sono conversazioni su questo libro. nessuna recensione | aggiungi una recensione
John Burnham studies the history of changing patterns in the dissemination, or "popularization," of scientific findings to the general public since 1830. Focusing on three different areas of science -- health, psychology, and the natural sciences -- Burnham explores the ways in which this process of popularization has deteriorated. He draws on evidence ranging from early lyceum lecturers to the new math and argues that today popular science is the functional equivalent of superstition. Non sono state trovate descrizioni di biblioteche |
Discussioni correntiNessuno
Google Books — Sto caricando le informazioni... GeneriSistema Decimale Melvil (DDC)509.73Natural sciences and mathematics General Science History, geographic treatment, biography North America United StatesClassificazione LCVotoMedia:
Sei tu?Diventa un autore di LibraryThing. |
Burnham writes, “As the quest for facts and objectivity grew in journalism, and as journalists more and more did the actual work of popularizing health, so increasingly the picture that both children and adults received was one of disembodied facts, disembodied even though discovered by scientists and clothed with the authority of science” (pg. 81). He continues, “Two factors overwhelmingly determined the nature of such popular science as existed in America at the end of the eighteenth century. The first was the continued hegemony in the United States of English writers, publications, and thinkers…the second factor that placed science in American culture in 1800 was the lack of full-time scientists” (pg. 129). Further, “The basis for popular interest in science was not different from that on which Americans were pursuing other popularizations: items that were curious in themselves; those that…were awe inspiring – a large fish, an aurora, a great steam engine; and those that were practical” (pg. 141).
Turning to the twentieth century, Burnham writes, “The increasing presence of television after the 1950s oppressed and counteracted all serious attempts to popularize science. From the very beginning, successful educational television programs tried on one level or another to popularize science. They sometimes had a devoted following, but always a small one, which although representing one kind of success nevertheless rendered them ephemeral” (pg. 177). He continues, “The astonishingly large amount of study devoted to science journalism, science in the newspapers, and particularly the science writers caused many people to identify popularization of science with the writers and newspapers and, furthermore, to confuse the development of institutions with substantive popularization” (pg. 195). Further, “Science itself evolved from an understandable system to a body of complexity difficult to grasp; instead of explaining mystery, popularizers had to contain confusion. Instead of offering reductionism and the unity of nature, the purveyors of science tended to embrace romanticism” (pg. 225). Finally, according to Burnham, “In the twentieth century…the new authority was imposed through the media and advertising, thus uniting the two most traditional enemies of science in the popular sphere: superstitious authority and commercial interest” (pg. 229). In this way, “one important by-product of the personality or celebrity to whom journalists could attribute opinions was that the media established an image of science as the pronouncement of authorities. And, of course, since all facts were equally acceptable, reporters tried to interview authorities who would contradict each other…The media winner usually turned out to be the most photogenic or articulate, or both, or the most cooperative with the press, rather than the best exponent of research” (pg. 239). ( )