Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 181–203 | Cite as

Why are graphs so central in science?

  • Roger Krohn


This paper raises the question of the prominence and use of statistical graphs in science, and argues that their use in problem solving analysis can best be understood in an ‘interactionist’ frame of analysis, including bio-emotion, culture, social organization, and environment as elements. The frame contrasts both with philosophical realism and with social constructivism, which posit two variables and one way causal flows. We next posit basic differences between visual, verbal, and numerical media of perception and communication. Graphs are thus seen as key interactive sites where different media are transformed into more interpretable forms. Examples are taken from Limnology where numbers are transformed into graphs to find patterns in them, and thus, by implication in the environmental materials from which the numerical measurements were taken. Their revisualization by passes a human cognitive limitation, for the direct analysis — interpretation of lists and tables of numbers, visual imaging being a cognitive strength. Sense of problem, conceptual repertoire, and social relations are seen to direct this pattern search and interpretive process.

Key words

Interactive mechanisms research practice statistical graphs visuals 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amann, K., and K. Knorr-Cetina: 1988, ‘The Fixation of (Visual) Evidence’, Representation in Scientific Practice, Special issue ofHuman Studies 11 (2-3), 133–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bazerman, C.: 1988,Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  3. Borell, M.: 1976, ‘The Instrumentation and the Rise of Modern Physiology’,Science and Technology Studies 5 (2), 53–62.Google Scholar
  4. Burke, J.: 1985,The Day the University Changed, Little, Brown, and Company, Boston, pp. 134–157.Google Scholar
  5. Cleveland, W.: 1984, ‘Graphs in Scientific Publications’,The American Statistician 38 (4), 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cleveland, W., and R. McGill: 1983, ‘Graphical Perception: Theory, Experimentation, Application to the Development of Graphical Methods’,Journal of American Statistical Association 79, 531–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cushing, D.: 1975,Marine Ecology and Fisheries, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  8. Demey, M.: 1982,The Cognitive Paradigm, Reidel, Boston.Google Scholar
  9. Dillon, P.: 1974, ‘The Phosphorus-Chlorophyll Relationship in Lakes’,Limnology Oceanography 19, 767–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferguson, E.: 1977, ‘The Minds' Eye: Nonverbal Thought in Technology’,Science 197, 827–836.Google Scholar
  11. Fisher, H.: 1982,Mapping Information, Abt Books, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  12. Freedman, R., R. Pisani, and R. Purves: 1978,Statistics, Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Funkhauser, H.: 1937, ‘The Graphical Presentation of Statistical Data’,Osiris III, 269–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giere, R.: 1988,Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  15. Gould, S.J.: 1989,Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, W. W. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Hoaglin, F., F. Moesteller, and J. Tukey: 1983,Understanding Robust and Exploratory Data, Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Knorr-Cetina, K.: 1981,The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science, Pergamon Press, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Knorr-Cetina, K.: 1989, ‘Ron Giere Explaining Science: The Cognitive Approach’, paper presented at the annual meeting of The Society for Social Studies of Science (4), Irvine, Calif. 11, 15–18, 1988.Google Scholar
  19. Krohn, R.: 1990, ‘Are All Scientific Visuals the Same?’, 4-5 Meetings, Minneapolis, 10, 1990.Google Scholar
  20. Latour, B.: 1986, ‘Visualization and Cognition: Thinking with Eyes and Hands’,Knowledge and Society 6, 1–40.Google Scholar
  21. Latour B. and S. Woolgar: 1979,Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, Calif.Google Scholar
  22. Lynch, M.: 1985,Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston.Google Scholar
  23. Lynch, M.: 1988, ‘The Externalized Retina: Selection and Mathematization in the Visual Documentation of Objects in the Life Sciences’,Human Studies 11, 201–234.Google Scholar
  24. Moesteller, F.: 1977,Data Analysis and Regression Addison-Wesley, Don Mills, Ontario.Google Scholar
  25. Rudwick, M.: 1976, ‘The Emergence of Visual Language for Geological Science, 1760–1840’,History of Science 14, 149–195.Google Scholar
  26. Rudwick, M.: 1985,The Great Devonian Controversy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  27. Schmid, C., and S. Schmid: 1979,Handbook of Graphic Presentation, Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Tufte, E.: 1984,The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Graphics Press, Cheshire, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  29. Tukey, W.: 1977,Exploratory Data Analysis, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  30. Wetzel, R.: 1975,Limnology, Saunders College Publishing 325, Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger Krohn
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations