Graphism thesis

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

• Philosophy of science
• Epistemology
• Fields of science
• List of academic disciplines
• Graphism

References

1. ↑ 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. 
2. ↑ Smith, L. D. et al. (2000). "Scientific Graphs and the Hierarchy of the Sciences". Social Studies of Science 30 (1): 73. doi:10.1177/030631200030001003. JSTOR 285770.  CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (link)
3. ↑ Cleveland, W. S. (1984). "Graphs in Scientific Publications". The American Statistician 38 (4): 261–9. doi:10.2307/2683400. JSTOR 2683400. 
4. ↑ Mann, B. (5 January 2001). "Is Technical Analysis Voodoo?". Fool on the Hill. Fool.com. 

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.