Graphism thesis

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Citation bot 1 (talk | contribs) at 00:24, 6 October 2011 ([Pu408]Tweak: issue. Formatted dashes. You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In sociology of science, the graphism thesis is a proposition of Bruno Latour that graphs are important in science.

Research has shown that one can distinguish between hard science and soft science disciplines based on the level of graph use, so it can be argued that there is a correlation between scientificity and visuality.[1][2] Furthermore, natural sciences publications appear to make heavier use of graphs than mathematical and social sciences.[3]

It has been claimed that an example of a discipline that uses graphs heavily but is not at all scientific is technical analysis.[4]

See also

References

  1. ^ Darin J. Arsenault; Laurence D. Smith; Edith A. Beauchamp (03/01/2006). "Visual Inscriptions in the Scientific Hierarchy" (PDF). Science Communication. 27 (3): 376. doi:10.1177/1075547005285030. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Laurence D. Smith; Lisa A. Best; D. Alan Stubbs; John Johnston; Andrea Bastiani Archibald (02/01/2000). "Scientific Graphs and the Hierarchy of the Sciences:" (PDF). Social Studies of Science. 30 (1): 73. doi:10.1177/030631200030001003. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) at JSTOR
  3. ^ William S. Cleveland (1984). "Graphs in Scientific Publications". The American Statistician. 38 (4): 261–9. doi:10.2307/2683400. JSTOR 2683400. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  4. ^ Fool.com: Is Technical Analysis Voodoo? [Fool on the Hill] January 5, 2001