Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Diversity and diversion: Higher superstition and the dangers of insularity in science and technology studies

Diversity and diversion: Higher superstition and the dangers of insularity in science and... Examines the debate over “Higher superstition” (Gross and Levitt, 1994). Puts forward the arguments in the book and the response to the book from members of the US science and technology studies community. Asserts that increases in technical control have been at the expense of social and individual control. Mentions “diversionary reframing” – changing the subject, possibly by diverting attention away from the subject matter to the person doing the criticizing. Explores public attitudes towards science and technology, quoting a number of layman approaches to the bafflement of science. Identifies the irony in Gross and Levitt’s arguments, particularly in developing the interface between science and technology. Recommends paying more attention to the social construction of beliefs. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy Emerald Publishing

Diversity and diversion: Higher superstition and the dangers of insularity in science and technology studies

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/diversity-and-diversion-higher-superstition-and-the-dangers-of-xENgLaMxJa

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 MCB UP Ltd. All rights reserved.
ISSN
0144-333X
DOI
10.1108/01443339810788416
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Examines the debate over “Higher superstition” (Gross and Levitt, 1994). Puts forward the arguments in the book and the response to the book from members of the US science and technology studies community. Asserts that increases in technical control have been at the expense of social and individual control. Mentions “diversionary reframing” – changing the subject, possibly by diverting attention away from the subject matter to the person doing the criticizing. Explores public attitudes towards science and technology, quoting a number of layman approaches to the bafflement of science. Identifies the irony in Gross and Levitt’s arguments, particularly in developing the interface between science and technology. Recommends paying more attention to the social construction of beliefs.

Journal

International Journal of Sociology and Social PolicyEmerald Publishing

Published: Jun 1, 1998

Keywords: Science; Society; Technology

There are no references for this article.