Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Intercultural Communication and Science and Technology Studies

  • 282 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carusi, A. 2008. Scientific Visualisations and Aesthetic Grounds for Trust. Ethics and Information Technology 10(4): 243–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • ———. 1992. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2001. Tacit Knowledge, Trust and the Q of Sapphire. Social Studies of Science 31(1): 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Gravity’s Shadow: The Search for Gravitational Waves. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011a. Gravity’s Ghost: Scientific Discovery in the Twenty-first Century. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011b. Language and Practice. Social Studies of Science 41(2): 271–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Rejecting Knowledge Claims Inside and Outside Science. Social Studies of Science 44(3): 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H., and R. Ribeiro. 2007. The Bread-making Machine: Tacit Knowledge and Two Types of Action. Organization Studies 28(9): 1417–1433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duhem, P. 1996. Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupré, J. 1995. The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyson, F. 2004. A Meeting with Enrico Fermi. Nature 427: 297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. 1975. Against Method. 3rd ed. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • ———. 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 

  • ———. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Galison, P., and D.J. Stump, eds. 1996. The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gooding, D. 1986. How Do Scientists Reach Agreement About Novel Observations? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 17(2): 205–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, R. 2002. Trust and Trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. Trust. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. 2006. The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the ‘New’ Scientific Governance. Social Studies of Science 36(2): 299–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennefick, D. 2000. Star Crushing: Theoretical Practice and the Theoreticians’ Regress. Social Studies of Science 30(1): 5–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Traveling at the Speed of Thought: Einstein and the Quest for Gravitational Waves. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr Cetina, K. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahsen, M. 2005. Seductive Simulations? Uncertainty Distribution around Climate Models. Social Studies of Science 35(6): 895–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • ———. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979 [1986]. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J., and P. Atkinson. 2011. The Surveillance of Cellular Scientists’ Practice. BioSocieties 6(4): 381–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. 1979. Trust and Power: Two Works by Niklas Luhmann. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. 1990. Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2001. Mechanizing Proof: Computing, Risk, and Trust. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • McDonell, G. 1997. Scientific and Everyday Knowledge: Trust and the Politics of Environmental Initiatives. Social Studies of Science 27(6): 819–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medawar, P.B. 1969. Induction and Intuition in Scientific Thought. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merz, M., and K. Knorr Cetina. 1997. Deconstruction in a ‘Thinking’ Science: Theoretical Physicists at Work. Social Studies of Science 27(1): 73–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monteiro, M., and E. Keating. 2009. Managing Misunderstandings: The Role of Language in Interdisciplinary Scientific Collaboration. Science Communication 31(1): 6–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pickering. 1981. Constraints on Controversy: The Case of the Magnetic Monopole. Social Studies of Science 11(1): 63–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1999. Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinch, T.J. 1986. Confronting Nature: The Sociology of Solar-Neutrino Detection. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, T.M. 1996. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reyes-Galindo, L. 2011. The Sociology of Theoretical Physics. PhD thesis, Cardiff University, Cardiff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robson, K. 1992. Accounting Numbers as ‘Inscription’: Action at a Distance and the Development of Accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 17(7): 685–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schütz, A. 1932 [1967]. The Phenomenology of the Social World (trans. G Walsh and F Lehnert). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S. 1994. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1995. Cordelia’s Love: Credibility and the Social Studies of Science. Perspectives on Science 3(3): 255–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S., S. Schaffer, and T. Hobbes. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump, 48204. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shrum, W., I. Chompalov, and J. Genuth. 2001. Trust, Conflict and Performance in Scientific Collaborations. Social Studies of Science 31(5): 681–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrum, W., J. Genuth, and I. Chompalov. 2007. Structures of Scientific Collaboration. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S.L. 1985. Scientific Work and Uncertainty. Social Studies of Science 15(3): 391–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sztompka, P. 1999. Trust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uslaner, E.M. 2002. The Moral Foundations of Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zee, A. 1986. Fearful Symmetry: The Search for Beauty in Modern Physics. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Geosciences Institute, State University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil

    Luis Reyes-Galindo

Authors
  1. Luis Reyes-Galindo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. State University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil

    Luis Reyes-Galindo

  2. University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil

    Tiago Ribeiro Duarte

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Reyes-Galindo, L. (2017). Linking the Subcultures of Physics: Virtual Empiricism and the Bonding Role of Trust. In: Reyes-Galindo, L., Ribeiro Duarte, T. (eds) Intercultural Communication and Science and Technology Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58365-5_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58365-5_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-58364-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-58365-5

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation