Comments on: Historians as Mediators (Isis Pt. 5) http://etherwave.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/historians-as-mediators-isis-pt-5/ A blog dedicated to improving how we write, teach, and think about the history of science Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:06:39 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Alexis http://etherwave.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/historians-as-mediators-isis-pt-5/#comment-121 Alexis Wed, 06 Aug 2008 01:22:17 +0000 http://etherwave.wordpress.com/?p=394#comment-121 My initial response is that you've read this article completely wrong (though I imagine I'll have more for you after I ruminate a bit further). They accused both scientists AND historians of being guilty of specialization to the exclusion of the populace. They aren't shaking your hand. They're biting it. Specifically, they weren't positing that history has something to offer science because history is better, and they certainly weren't setting up Snow's two-worlds dichotomy. They were positing that studying popular culture has something to offer the specialist - and they're including all academics under that umbrella - not because one or the other is "better," but because a solid understanding of it (or lack thereof) is currently a blindspot in the study of history, science, AND history of science. Their entire argument centers around the foundation that a diversity of opinion is necessary to have knowledge that is complete and robust as possible (different disciplines bring different things to the table, yadda yadda). It would be self-defeating for them to then say that one of those disciplines is better or has more to offer than the other. Which is why they don't say that. They say that a discipline ignores alternative sources of knowledge at their peril. My initial response is that you’ve read this article completely wrong (though I imagine I’ll have more for you after I ruminate a bit further). They accused both scientists AND historians of being guilty of specialization to the exclusion of the populace. They aren’t shaking your hand. They’re biting it.

Specifically, they weren’t positing that history has something to offer science because history is better, and they certainly weren’t setting up Snow’s two-worlds dichotomy. They were positing that studying popular culture has something to offer the specialist – and they’re including all academics under that umbrella – not because one or the other is “better,” but because a solid understanding of it (or lack thereof) is currently a blindspot in the study of history, science, AND history of science.

Their entire argument centers around the foundation that a diversity of opinion is necessary to have knowledge that is complete and robust as possible (different disciplines bring different things to the table, yadda yadda). It would be self-defeating for them to then say that one of those disciplines is better or has more to offer than the other. Which is why they don’t say that. They say that a discipline ignores alternative sources of knowledge at their peril.

]]> By: Isis Review: Science in the Everyday World « Time to Eat the Dogs http://etherwave.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/historians-as-mediators-isis-pt-5/#comment-110 Isis Review: Science in the Everyday World « Time to Eat the Dogs Sun, 03 Aug 2008 04:30:25 +0000 http://etherwave.wordpress.com/?p=394#comment-110 [...] with this in mind, I am grateful to Will Thomas, historian of science, for profiling Isis articles on his blog Ether Wave Propaganda. In this pursuit, he has become my intellectual trainer, forcing [...] [...] with this in mind, I am grateful to Will Thomas, historian of science, for profiling Isis articles on his blog Ether Wave Propaganda. In this pursuit, he has become my intellectual trainer, forcing [...]

]]> By: Michael Robinson http://etherwave.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/historians-as-mediators-isis-pt-5/#comment-108 Michael Robinson Fri, 01 Aug 2008 04:27:00 +0000 http://etherwave.wordpress.com/?p=394#comment-108 Now I have to read Isis this month. I can't speak to the Pandora article, but it seems to me that your point is borne out by many forms of science communication, not the least of which are the terrific ScienceBlogs writers who are bringing their lab experiences to the broader public, often in very nuanced ways. I've been poking around at Brian Switek's site Laelaps and some of the blogs he links with. Pretty impressive stuff some of it. Now I have to read Isis this month. I can’t speak to the Pandora article, but it seems to me that your point is borne out by many forms of science communication, not the least of which are the terrific ScienceBlogs writers who are bringing their lab experiences to the broader public, often in very nuanced ways. I’ve been poking around at Brian Switek’s site Laelaps and some of the blogs he links with. Pretty impressive stuff some of it.

]]>