Advertisement

Scientific Witness, Testimony, and Mediation

  • Joan Leach

Abstract

Proposals for the twentieth century to be understood as the century of traumatic witness have dominated post-millennial criticism and analysis in multiple genres of life-writing and history.2 For the media, the claim has been made directly that ‘television sealed the twentieth century’s fate as the century of witness’ (Ellis, 2000, p. 32). It would seem, then, that trauma and its attendance in witnesses and testimonies are central to understanding the century gone and the one recently begun. The sciences sit peculiarly on the edge of this claim. On the one hand, scientific witnessing suggests a remove from the witness to trauma; ‘the objective witness is very different from the survivor … the objective witness claims disembodiment and passivity, a cold indifference to the story, offering “just the facts”’ (Peters, 2001, p. 716). On the other hand, scientists may claim objectivity and disinterestedness in the way they go about research, but they certainly are not disinterested in the results, the ‘story’, or the interpretations of their data. Further, the goals of science do not include only representation, but intervention, belying the passivity in the appeal to objective witness; the point of science is both to represent the world and do things in it (Hacking, 1983; Pickering, 1995). Finally, through tracing the history of the position of scientific witness, historians of science have drawn attention to the mediated nature of scientific observation and the moral, political, and epistemic commitments of scientific observers as they invent (in the rhetorical sense of inventio) testimony from observation.

Keywords

Seventeenth Century Implicit Argument Folk Theory Epistemic Dependence Mediate Nature 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. J. Adler (1994) ‘Testimony, Trust, and Knowing’, Journal of Philosophy, vol. 91, 264–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aristotle, ‘The Art of Rhetoric’, in Jonathan Barnes (ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle, 2 vols (Princeton: Princeton University Press; publication date: 1984).Google Scholar
  3. C. Barron (2003) ‘A Strong Distinction between Humans and Non-Humans is No Longer Required for Research Purposes’, History of the Human Sciences, vol. 16, no. 2, 77–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. C.A.J. Coady (2002) ‘Testimony and Intellectual Autonomy’, Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A, vol. 33, no. 2, 355–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. V. Das, A. Kleinman, M. Lock, M. Ramphele, and P. Reynolds (eds) (2001) Remaking a World: Violence, Social Suffering and Recovery (London: University of California Press).Google Scholar
  6. J. Durant (1989) ‘The Public Understanding of Science’, Nature, vol. 340, 11–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. J. Ellis (2000) Seeing Things: Television in the Age of Uncertainty (London: I. B. Tauris).Google Scholar
  8. S. Felman and D. Laub (1992) Testimony: Crises of Witnessing in Literature, Psychoanalysis, and History (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
  9. S. Fuller (1996) ‘Recent Work in Social Epistemology’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 3, 149–66.Google Scholar
  10. L. Gilmore (2001) The Limits of Autobiography: Trauma and Testimony (London: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
  11. I. Hacking (1983) Representing and Intervening (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. D. Haraway (1985) ‘A Manifesto for Cyborgs’, Socialist Review, vol. 80, 65–88.Google Scholar
  13. D. Haraway (1996) Modest Witness@Second Millennium: Femaleman Meets Oncomouse (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
  14. J. Hardwig (1985) ‘Epistemic Dependence’, The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 82, 335–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. J.E. Harmon and A. Gross (2007) The Scientific Literature: A Guided Tour (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  16. L. Hunter (1999) Critiques of Knowing: Situated Textualities in Science, Computing and the Arts (London: Routledge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. E. Hutchins (1995) Cognition in the Wild (Cambridge: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  18. M. Kusch and P. Lipton (2002) ‘Testimony: A Primer’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 33, 209–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. D. Laub and S. Feldman (1991) Testimony: Crises of Witnessing in Literature, Psychoanalyis and History (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
  20. P. Lipton (1998) ‘The Epistemology of Testimony’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 29, no. 1, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. J. Metcalfe and T. Gascoigne (1997) ‘Incentives and Impediments to Scientists Communicating through the Media’, Science Communication, vol. 18, no. 3, 265–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. M. Mead and R. Metraux (1957) ‘The Image of the Scientist among High-School Students’, Science, vol. 126, no. 3270, 384–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. S. Montgomery (1995) The Scientific Voice (London: Guilford Press).Google Scholar
  24. A. Pickering (1995) The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency and Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. J.D. Peters (2001) ‘Witnessing’, Media, Culture and Society, vol. 23, no. 6, 707–23. Also in this volume, Chapter 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. V. Postrel (2007) ‘Beautiful Minds’, The Atlantic, vol. 300, no. 2, 140–1.Google Scholar
  27. K. Rolin (2002) ‘Gender and Trust in Science’, Hypatia, vol. 17, no. 4, 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. S. Shapin (1984) ‘Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle’s Literary Technology’, Social Studies of Science, vol. 14, 481–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. S. Shapin (1994) A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth Century England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  30. B. Shapiro (2002) ‘Testimony in Seventeenth-Century English Natural Philosophy: Legal Origins and Early Development’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 33, 243–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. L. Suchman (2007) Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  32. D. Wilson and D. Sperber (1981) ‘On Grice’s Theory of Conversation’, in P. Wersh (ed.), Conversation and Discourse (New York: St. Martin’s Press).Google Scholar
  33. J. Ziman (2000) Real Science: What It Is and What It means (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Joan Leach 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joan Leach

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations