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]

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): 73–94. doi:10.1177/030631200030001003. JSTOR   285770.
3. Cleveland, W. S. (1984). "Graphs in Scientific Publications". The American Statistician . 38 (4): 261–9. doi:10.2307/2683400. JSTOR   2683400.

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.