Scientific community 338705 223166028 2008-07-02T21:20:54Z 63.174.146.190 /* Political controversies */ {{Nofootnotes|date=August 2007}} The '''scientific community''' consists of the total body of [[scientist]]s, its relationships and interactions. It is normally divided into "sub-communities" each working on a particular field within science (for example there is a [[robotics]] community within the field of [[computer science]]. [[Objectivity (philosophy)|Objectivity]] is expected to be achieved by the [[scientific method]]. [[Peer review]], through discussion and debate within journals and conferences, assists in this objectivity by maintaining the quality of research methodology and interpretation of results. ==Membership, status and interactions== "Membership" of the community is generally, but not exclusively, a function of [[education]], [[employment status]], and [[institutional affiliation]]. Status within the community is highly correlated with publication record. [[Sociology of science|Sociologists]] report that [[gender]], [[Race (classification of human beings)|race]], and [[Social class|class]] may also influence status within the community. Scientists are usually trained in [[academia]] through the [[university]] system. As such, [[academic degree|degrees]] in the relevant scientific sub-disciplines are often considered prerequisites for membership in the relevant community. In particular, the [[PhD]] with its [[doctoral dissertation|research requirements]] functions as a kind of [[entrance examination]] into the community, though continued membership is dependent on maintaining connections to other researchers through publication and [[scientific conference|conferences]]. After obtaining a PhD an academic scientist may continue through [[postdoc|post-doctoral fellowship]]s and onto [[professor]]ships. Other scientists may find employment in [[industry]], [[think tank]]s, or the [[government]]. Independent researchers tend to be regarded less-highly, though in principle scientists are judged on the caliber of their contributions. Members of the same community do not need to work together. Communication between the members is established by disseminating research work and hypotheses through articles in [[peer review]]ed [[scientific journals|journals]], or by attending [[academic conference|conference]]s where new research is presented and ideas exchanged and discussed. There are also many informal methods of communication of scientific work and results as well. And many in a coherent community may actually ''not'' communicate all of their work with one another, for various professional reasons. ==Speaking for the scientific community== Unlike in previous centuries when the community of scholars were all members of [[learned society|learned societies]] and similar institutions, there are no singular bodies which can be said today to speak for all of science. In the [[United States]] the [[National Academy of Science]] sometimes acts as a surrogate when the opinions of the scientific community need to be ascertained by [[public policy|policy maker]]s or the national [[government]], but the statements of the National Academy are not binding on scientists nor do they necessarily reflect the opinions of every scientist in the community. Nevertheless, general [[scientific consensus]] is a concept which is often referred to when dealing with questions that can be subject to [[scientific method]]ology. While the consensus opinion of the community is not always easy to ascertain, generally the standards and utility of the [[scientific method]] have tended to ensure that scientists agree on a standard, [[mainstream]] corpus of [[fact]] explicated by [[scientific theory]] while rejecting ideas which run counter to this realization. Scientific consensus is of such importance to science pedagogy, the evaluation of new ideas, and research funding that critics of the consensus often bitterly complain that there is a [[closed shop]] [[bias]] within the scientific community toward new ideas (see articles on [[protoscience]], [[fringe science]], and [[pseudoscience]]). In response [[scientific skepticism|skeptical organizations]] have devoted considerable amounts of time and money to [[debunk]]ing the claims of those who balk at scientific consensus. [[Philosophy of science|Philosophers of science]] argue over the [[epistemology|epistemological]] limits of such a consensus and some, including [[Thomas Kuhn]], have pointed to the existence of [[scientific revolution]]s in the [[history of science]] as being an important indication that scientific consensus can, at times, be wrong. Nevertheless, the sheer explanatory power of science in its ability to make [[accuracy|accurate]] and [[precision|precise]] predictions and aid in the design and [[engineering]] of new [[technology]] has ensconced "science" and, by proxy, the opinions of the scientific community as a highly respected form of [[knowledge]] both in the [[academia|academy]] and in [[popular culture]]. ===Political controversies=== The high regard with which scientific results are held in Western society has caused a number of [[Politicization of science|political controversies over scientific subjects]] to arise. A persistency of the alleged conflict between [[religion and science]] has often been cited as representative of a struggle between tradition and progress or [[faith and reason]].{{Fact|date=April 2007}} The combative relationship has been cited back to the beginnings of [[natural science]] when [[Galileo]] was tried before the [[Inquisition]] for preaching blasphemy regarding heliocentrism.{{Fact|date=April 2007}} In more recent times, the [[creation-evolution controversy]] has resulted in many [[creationism|religious believers in a supernatural creation]] to attack the [[naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic]] explanation of origins provided by the sciences of [[evolutionary biology]], [[geology]], and [[astronomy]]. Although the dichotomy seems to be of a different outlook from a [[Continental]] [[Europe]]an perspective, it does exist. The [[Vienna Circle]], for instance, had a paramount (i.e. symbolic) influence on the [[semiotic regime]] represented by the [[Scientific]] [[Community]] in Europe. In the decades following [[World War II]], many in the scientific community were convinced that [[nuclear power]] would solve the pending [[energy crisis]] by providing "energy too cheap to meter". This advocacy led to the construction of many [[nuclear power plants]], but was also accompanied by a global political movement opposed to nuclear power due to safety concerns and associations of the technology with [[nuclear weapons]]. Mass protests in the United States and Europe during the 1970s and 1980s along with the disasters of [[Chernobyl]] and [[Three Mile Island]] led to a decline in nuclear power plant construction. In the last decades or so, both [[Global warming controversy|global warming]] and [[stem cell controversy|stem cells]] have placed the opinions of the scientific community in the forefront of political debate. == See also == *[[Epistemology]] *[[Objectivity (philosophy)]] *[[Scientific consensus]] *[[Cudos]] ==References and external articles== ;Sociologies of science *[[Bruno Latour]] and [[Steve Woolgar]], "''[[Laboratory Life|Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts]]''". Beverly Hills : Sage Publications, 1979. *Sharon Traweek, "''Beamtimes and lifetimes: the world of high energy physicists''". Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988. *Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, ''[[Leviathan and the Air-Pump|Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life]]''". Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1985). *[[Karin Knorr|Karin Knorr Cetina]], ''Epistemic cultures.'' Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. ; History and philosophy of science *[[Thomas Kuhn]], "''[[The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]]''". Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. ;Other articles * Peter M. Haas. "''[http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~olau/ir/archive/haa2.pdf Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination]''". International Organization, v. 46, n. 1, winter 1992, pp. 1-35. ([[PDF]]) * "''[http://www.tasa.org.au/members/docs/2001_1/Glaser.pdf Producing Communities’ as a Theoretical Challenge]; Social order in scientific communities''". TASA 2001 Conference, The University of Sydney, 13-15 December 2001. ([[PDF]]) [[Category:Philosophy of science]] [[Category:Sociology of science]] [[de:Wissenschaftsgemeinde]] [[es:Comunidad científica]] [[fr:Communauté scientifique]] [[it:Comunità scientifica]] [[he:הקהילה המדעית]] [[nl:Wetenschappelijke gemeenschap]] [[no:Vitenskapelige miljø]] [[fi:Tiedeyhteisö]] [[zh:科學界]]