The Ancient Mythology of Modern Science: A Mythologist Looks (Seriously) at Popular Science Writing
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Ancient Mythology of Modern Science: A Mythologist Looks (Seriously) at Popular Science Writing. By Gregory Schrempp. (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. 2012. Pp. xiv + 291, preface, introduction, notes, works cited. $29.95 cloth.)This work is carefully and painstakingly constructed around a straightforward but powerful argument: diat popular science writers engage in mydi-making, while often claiming that diey are striving, instead, against myth. Schrempp makes his argument via intensive examination of several specific examples, some of which comprise chapters unto themselves. Schrempp argues diat popular science writers end up mythologizing primarily in their attempts to imbue subjective meaning into die objective world. Or, to put it another way, in trying to get general readers to care about scientific viewpoint instead of die mydiic, popular science writers end up employing mydi-making strategies. There is dius a strong sense of irony running through work - in case by case, Schrempp carefully demonstrates how popular science writers emulate exacdy diey denigrate. In part, this is because of die power of narrative language in describing objective reality for homo sapiens, but in part it is also a testament to scientists' glib dismissal of die power of mytiiology coupled with equally glib assurance in righteousness of science. When scientists assume die role of high priests in explaining cosmic trudis to ignorant masses, mydiologizing is perhaps destined to occur.Perhaps most convincing, or at least easiest to witness, is his first example, comprising die bulk of chapter 2, which is essentially a deconstructionist critique of The Artful Universe (2005), a book by John Barlow, professor of mathematics at University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Royal Society. In this work, Barlow attempts to explain man's place in universe, especially centering on acquisition of fire. Schrempp titled this chapter, It had to be you! Fire without Prometheus. His critique of Barlow's work is convincing and masterful. Early on, Schrempp points out that what Barrow gives us in his fiery crescendo is none other than a new version of ancient story that Western readers associate with Prometheus... (36). He strips away scientific-sounding claims to reveal just-so stories and shows that, following Barrow's anthropocentric and ethnocentric ideas of culture, arrive at astounding conclusion that we are right size to wield particular technologies that our species invented (53). Towards end, Schrempp offers that Scientific pronouncements go down more easily when they are already familiar as myth; a major source of persuasiveness in Barrow's analysis lies in fact that it teaches us something we already believe (63). Schrempp states that Barrow's fire-maker is an ancient concept revivified through fresh iconography (71), a recurring theme throughout his book.One chapter critiques George Lakoff along with other scholars for following Copernican revolution, which Schrempp sees as origin myth of cosmos as kinship, while another chapter questions current-day followers of Rene Descartes 's homunculus in question of the mind. Chapter 6, dealing with moon, earth, and shifting of viewpoints of universe, perhaps particularly as enunciated by Carl Sagan, investigates how popular science writers try to re-imbue a sense of public wonderment in universe hand in hand with government initiatives (in case of NASA particularly) by employing compensatory mythic visions of cosmos.His last chapter is a short conclusion, tying in his many examples into supporting view of his overall thesis. As author himself states, I have argued that many of strategies employed in pursuit of such synthesizing ambitions - including storytelling, heroizing, speculative origin scenarios, microcosm/ macrocosm analogies, bold celestial imagery, and readings of moral lessons in structure of cosmos - are reminiscent of strategies characteristic of traditional mythologies (227). …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle