Advertisement

Linking the Subcultures of Physics: Virtual Empiricism and the Bonding Role of Trust

  • Luis Reyes-Galindo
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter draws on empirical material concerning the communication and use of knowledge in experimental physics and its relations to the culture of theoretical physics. The role that trust plays in these interactions is used to create a model of social distance between interacting theoretical and experimental cultures. The chapter thus seeks to reintroduce trust as a fundamental element in answering the problem of disunity in the sociology of knowledge.

References

  1. Bourdieu, P. 1975. The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason. Social Science Information 14(6): 19–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carusi, A. 2008. Scientific Visualisations and Aesthetic Grounds for Trust. Ethics and Information Technology 10(4): 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke, A.E., and S.L. Star. 2008. The Social Worlds Framework: A Theory/Methods Package. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 113–137. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Collins, H.M. 1984. Researching Spoonbending: Concepts and Practise of Participatory fieldwork. In Social Researching: Politics, Problems, Practice, ed. C. Bell and H. Roberts, 54–69. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 1992. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2001. Tacit Knowledge, Trust and the Q of Sapphire. Social Studies of Science 31(1): 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ———. 2004. Gravity’s Shadow: The Search for Gravitational Waves. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2010. Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ———. 2011a. Gravity’s Ghost: Scientific Discovery in the Twenty-first Century. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2011b. Language and Practice. Social Studies of Science 41(2): 271–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ———. 2014. Rejecting Knowledge Claims Inside and Outside Science. Social Studies of Science 44(3): 1–14.Google Scholar
  12. Collins, H.M., and R. Evans. 2002. The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience. Social Studies of Science 32(2): 235–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collins, H., and R. Ribeiro. 2007. The Bread-making Machine: Tacit Knowledge and Two Types of Action. Organization Studies 28(9): 1417–1433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collins, H.M., and G. Sanders. 2007. They Give You the Keys and Say ‘Drive It!’ Managers, Referred Expertise, and Other Expertises. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38(4): 621–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duhem, P. 1996. Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  17. Dupré, J. 1995. The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dyson, F. 2004. A Meeting with Enrico Fermi. Nature 427: 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feyerabend, P. 1975. Against Method. 3rd ed. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  20. Galison, P. 1996a. Computer Simulations and the Trading Zone. In The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, ed. P. Galison and D.J. Stump, 118–157. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 1996b. Introduction: The Context of Disunity. In The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, ed. P. Galison and D.J. Stump, 1–36. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 2010. Trading with the Enemy. In Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration, ed. M.E. Gorman, 25–52. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Galison, P., and D.J. Stump, eds. 1996. The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gooding, D. 1986. How Do Scientists Reach Agreement About Novel Observations? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 17(2): 205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hardin, R. 2002. Trust and Trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 2006. Trust. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  30. Haycock, D.B. 2011. The Facts of Life and Death: A Case of Exceptional Longevity. In How Well Do Facts Travel? The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge, ed. P. Howlet and M.S. Morgan, 403–428. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hedgecoe, A.M. 2012. Trust and Regulatory Organizations: The Role of Local Knowledge and Facework in Research Ethics Review. Social Studies of Science 42(5): 662–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Irwin, A. 2006. The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the ‘New’ Scientific Governance. Social Studies of Science 36(2): 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kennefick, D. 2000. Star Crushing: Theoretical Practice and the Theoreticians’ Regress. Social Studies of Science 30(1): 5–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ———. 2007. Traveling at the Speed of Thought: Einstein and the Quest for Gravitational Waves. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Knorr Cetina, K. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lahsen, M. 2005. Seductive Simulations? Uncertainty Distribution around Climate Models. Social Studies of Science 35(6): 895–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Latour, B. 1986. Visualization and Cognition: Thinking with Eyes and Hands. In Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present, ed. H. Kuklick and E. Long, vol. 6, 1–40. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  38. ———. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979 [1986]. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lewis, J., and P. Atkinson. 2011. The Surveillance of Cellular Scientists’ Practice. BioSocieties 6(4): 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Luhmann, N. 1979. Trust and Power: Two Works by Niklas Luhmann. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  42. MacKenzie, D. 1990. Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. ———. 2001. Mechanizing Proof: Computing, Risk, and Trust. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mayer, R.C., J.H. Davis, and F.D. Schoorman. 1995. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 709–734.Google Scholar
  45. McDonell, G. 1997. Scientific and Everyday Knowledge: Trust and the Politics of Environmental Initiatives. Social Studies of Science 27(6): 819–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Medawar, P.B. 1969. Induction and Intuition in Scientific Thought. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  47. Merz, M., and K. Knorr Cetina. 1997. Deconstruction in a ‘Thinking’ Science: Theoretical Physicists at Work. Social Studies of Science 27(1): 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Monteiro, M., and E. Keating. 2009. Managing Misunderstandings: The Role of Language in Interdisciplinary Scientific Collaboration. Science Communication 31(1): 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Morgan, M.S. 2001. Travelling Facts. In How Well Do Facts Travel? The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge, ed. P. Howlet and M.S. Morgan, 3–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Pickering. 1981. Constraints on Controversy: The Case of the Magnetic Monopole. Social Studies of Science 11(1): 63–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pickering, A. 1984. Against Putting the Phenomena First: The Discovery of the Weak Neutral Current. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 15(2): 85–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. ———. 1999. Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  53. Pinch, T.J. 1986. Confronting Nature: The Sociology of Solar-Neutrino Detection. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Porter, T.M. 1996. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reyes-Galindo, L. 2011. The Sociology of Theoretical Physics. PhD thesis, Cardiff University, Cardiff.Google Scholar
  56. Robson, K. 1992. Accounting Numbers as ‘Inscription’: Action at a Distance and the Development of Accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 17(7): 685–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schütz, A. 1932 [1967]. The Phenomenology of the Social World (trans. G Walsh and F Lehnert). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Shapin, S. 1994. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  59. ———. 1995. Cordelia’s Love: Credibility and the Social Studies of Science. Perspectives on Science 3(3): 255–275.Google Scholar
  60. Shapin, S., S. Schaffer, and T. Hobbes. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump, 48204. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Shrager, J. 2010. From Wizards to Trading Zones: Crossing the Chasm of Computers in Scientific Collaboration. In Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration, ed. M.E. Gorman, 107–124. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shrum, W., I. Chompalov, and J. Genuth. 2001. Trust, Conflict and Performance in Scientific Collaborations. Social Studies of Science 31(5): 681–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shrum, W., J. Genuth, and I. Chompalov. 2007. Structures of Scientific Collaboration. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  64. Star, S.L. 1985. Scientific Work and Uncertainty. Social Studies of Science 15(3): 391–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Star, S.L., and J.R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19(3): 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stephens, N., P. Atkinson, and P. Glasner. 2011. Documenting the Doable and Doing the Documented: Bridging Strategies at the UK Stem Cell Bank. Social Studies of Science 41(6): 791–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sztompka, P. 1999. Trust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Uslaner, E.M. 2002. The Moral Foundations of Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wilson, G., and C.G. Herndl. 2007. Boundary Objects as Rhetorical Exigence: Knowledge Mapping and Interdisciplinary Cooperation at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 21(2): 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zee, A. 1986. Fearful Symmetry: The Search for Beauty in Modern Physics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luis Reyes-Galindo
    • 1
  1. 1.Geosciences Institute, State University of CampinasCampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations