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
- ^ Arsenault, D. J.; Smith, L. D; Beauchamp, E. A. (2006). "Visual Inscriptions in the Scientific Hierarchy". Science Communication. 27 (3): 376. doi:10.1177/1075547005285030.
- ^ Smith, L. D.; et al. (2000). "Scientific Graphs and the Hierarchy of the Sciences". Social Studies of Science. 30 (1): 73–94. doi:10.1177/030631200030001003. JSTOR 285770.
- ^ Cleveland, W. S. (1984). "Graphs in Scientific Publications". The American Statistician. 38 (4): 261–9. doi:10.2307/2683400. JSTOR 2683400.
- ^ Mann, B. (5 January 2001). "Is Technical Analysis Voodoo?". Fool on the Hill. Fool.com. Archived from the original on 9 February 2008. Retrieved 21 February 2008.
External links
- Best, L. A.; Smith, L. D.; Stubbs, D. A. (2001). "Graph use in psychology and other sciences". Behavioural Processes. 54 (1–3): 155–165. doi:10.1016/S0376-6357(01)00156-5. PMID 11369467.
- Krohn, R. (1991). "Why are graphs so central in science?". Biology and Philosophy. 6 (2): 181–203. doi:10.1007/BF02426837.
- Cleveland, W. S. (1984). "Graphs in Scientific Publications". The American Statistician. 38 (4): 261–9. doi:10.2307/2683400. JSTOR 2683400.